Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/March 2007

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:WikiLoco

Suspected sockpuppeteer

WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.225.207.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

~~Malomeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
Note, while I think Malomeat is unlikely, it's still possible, and I'd rather be complete.

Report submission by

McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Naruto: Ninja Council 3 is coming out soon in the US. There has been some disagreement as to whether that is Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 or Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 3. The battle took place as an edit war, and comments, mostly without substance, were being thrown around on both sides in edit summaries. Enter WikiLoco

[1]
[2] (not civil edit summary)
[3] (caps yelling to the several different people who are reverting changes back) [4] (personal attack)
[5] (one IP makes a second revert, WikiLoco livid in edit summary)
[6] Malomeat sides with WikiLoco and reverts. (If this were WikiLoco, it would have been a 3rd revert in 24 hours)
[7] After a couple of days of it being not WikiLoco's way, he reverts again
McKaySalisbury is at this point monitoring all changes by WikiLoco because of suspicious behavior, and after analyzing the evidence at hand (I'm familiar with Naruto's japanese and english production), I quickly revert WikiLoco's reversion (not realizing that he was entering an edit war)
[8] WikiLoco quickly reverts again stating some very weak backing
I revert partially
[9] WikiLoco adds a source that doesn't support his claim
I remove both sources
[10] [11] WikiLoco makes third revert in 24 hours.
I revert

At about this time, a message was posted about him at WP:AN#User Talk:WikiLoco. The outcome is basically "reform with someone's mentoring or a community ban is possible".

The edits made this day by WikiLoco, were the last edits made by him. The next day, WikiManiac64 comes back from a 4 month break. WikiLoco has only been active during that break, but only during part of that time. Are there other potential sockpuppets missed?

Between Loco and Maniac's edits is an edit by an IP

[12] siding with WikiLoco by name

One of the first items on WikiManiac64's agenda is

[13] "rv vandalism"
[14] and again

[15] Malomeat changes the article again.

McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I should be up front, and say that I don't particularly like many of the edits that WikiLoco is making. They are rarely sourced, and though some of his edits are good, I can't trust them anymore. I personally believe that he's a good intentioned editor who lacks structure, and is unwilling to listen to advice given him by those who know the rules. Because his "vandalisms" are infrequent, WP:AIV is ineffective, and posts to the Administrator's boards have on occasion garnered no response from the community. Because I suspect sockpuppetry, I also don't trust edits of WikiManiac64 McKay 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that during the suspected WikiLoco->WikiManiac64 changeover, the IP was blocked from acccount creation. Could that be why he went back to an old one? McKay 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my complaints with WikiLoco, is that he never really responds to replies on his talk page. Surprisingly enough, all three named users here have yet to say anything in their defense, and have edited since the SSP came up. McKay 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To my defense, I just explained in the article Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 the reason for my edits. Just because I was reverting edits, didn´t mean I was a sockpuppet. - !Malomeat 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks malomeat, Like I said above, I was least sure about the WikiLoco=Malomeat connection, but put it in for completeness. McKay 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by an uninvolved party

I have examined the "evidence" and find it unlikely that Malomeat is a sockpuppet. I saw no evidence of vandalism, disruption, or multiple voting. Accusing someone is a very serious matter. I take offense that someone made a charge of sockpuppetry "for completeness". If done on a municipal level, this could mean that YOU were arrested for burglary, along with a bunch of other "suspects" with all of you having to prove your innocence. I prefer to assume good faith and discuss things with the other person. Being disruptive is a very bad problem in wikipedia so being accused of it is a very serious matter. Don't accuse unless you are certain of it! I suggest that the complaint be amended to delete Malomeat. My examination of the evidence leads me to believe that the two users with the name that starts with wiki should be advised on good wikipedia manners at the very least.Dereks1x 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

I've removed Malomeat as unlikely. Please don't just throw an accusation at anyone marginally possible when filing these cases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco and WikiManiac64 are a pretty clear case of good hand/bad hand puppetry (or in this case, maybe bad hand/worse hand). WikiLoco was already blocked indefinitely for his previous behavior, WikiManiac64 is blocked as a block-evading sock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Epbr123

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Epbr123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Evergreens78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

LaMenta3 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Sockpuppeteer User:Epbr123 began nominating or participating in large numbers of AfD discussions on 14 March 2007 and appeared to be getting little support for most of them. On 15 March 2007, an account for User:Evergreens78 was created. The majority of this user's edits are AfD creations of discussions, and many are ones that were either created or participated in by the suspected Sockpuppeteer. Votes by suspected Sockpuppet and Puppeteer are invariably the same. Below is as complete of a list as possible of the AfD discussions in question, along with relevant diffs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's Law (2nd nomination)

Diffs by Evergreens78 - Diffs 1-2 (creation of AfD discussion, user's 6th and 7th edits)

Diffs by Epbr123 - Diffs 1-6 (vote to delete), Diff 7, Diffs 8-12

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howell (footballer)

Article was Speedied, AfD discussion created by Epbr123 and 'Speedy Delete' vote was made by Evergreens78

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Stewart

Diffs by Epbr123 - Diff 1(creation of AfD discussion), Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diffs 5-6, Diff 7, Diffs 8-10

Diffs by Evergreens78 - Diff 1 (Strong Delete vote), Diffs 2-3

Comments

Compiled list is shorter than I thought it would be, however it is very odd that the majority of a new user's edits would be in AfD discussions. Suspected sockpuppet has also been doing some trolling in discussions and through vandalism on articles such as Anton LeVey (diff 1) and (diff 2), though this doesn't directly relate to the Sockpuppetry, except that this may be a case of "Good hand, bad hand". This, however, doesn't come with as much evidence as the AfD Sockpuppetry.
I can't find anything to prove anything. However, that Evergreen created Category:Trolls and put himself in it is very interesting. —Scouter Sig 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Admittedly, the two users' edit patterns have diverged significantly since I first suspected them and opened this case. I'm inclined to believe at this point that they are two separate people, but they do both have disruptive tendencies which coincided at the wrong place at the wrong time. Evergreens78, trollish-pain-in-our-collective-rear-ends as he may be, is probably no one's sockpuppet. However, it may be best to do a checkuser in order to be certain. Something still doesn't feel quite right to me about either of these users. LaMenta3 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like an apology for the 'disruptive tendencies' remark. Epbr123 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked Evergreens78 for other reasons. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:32:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Response from Epbr123

I didn't need anyone to back me up in the David Howell discussion. Evergreens78's support wasn't particularly useful in the Liz Stewart discussion.

Response from Evergreens78

I'm not a sock-puppet. Check out IPs, I doubt we're even in the same subnet.

--Evergreens78 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Evergreens78 blocked already for disruption, but I don't see conclusive proof here that he was a sock of Epbr123. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:DrParkes

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DrParkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kentkent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kbenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesthorburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.34.17.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

FlowWTG 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

[user in one of 4 directly subsequent removals of AfD tag and {fact} tags]
[removing AfD, npov, tone, self-published tags]
[[16]]
[on Barry Ley article]
[user acting similarly a while before]
[supporting DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion in an odd tone]
[displaying the capitalization trait]
[user Jamesthorburn displaying the capitalization trait]
[Kbenton displaying the same capitalization trait and hero-worship of DrParkers]
[more or less admitting to hiding identity using IP-concealers]
[hero-worshipping DrParkes and encouraging ban evasion]
There is too many diffs of the same pattern to list here in a feasible fashion. Please take note of the deleted article Blaggers's discussion page, the Barry Ley page and its discussion, and the identical writing styles between all the named parties and the suspected puppetmaster, who is banned for circumventing a three-day ban (displaying this user's history in these matters) for edit-warring, without sources, the Brazilian Jiu-jitsu article. The named users all seem to have the banned user's exact views in that matter. They all seem to have paranoid delusions that a "Judo Gang" is hounding DrParkes's unsourced revelations on the nature of BJJ from wikipedia. The named suspected sockpuppets notably share a tendency to capitalize the names of editors "they" have problems with. They share a tendency to remove tags requesting citations or information. When they do provide citations they are invariably faulty.

If you spend some time (unfortunately, all the named users also share a tendency to make many tiny edits in sequence) reading the histories of Barry Ley, its talk, and its article for deletion page, I believe it is obvious that they are one user, most likely banned user DrParkes; at the least they are meatpuppets.

Comments

Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk is another new user following similar pattens, but with random, often reverted, edits to other pages. --Nate 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

IP has not edited in some time, all named accounts have been blocked as obvious disruptive socks by Guy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mrlob

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mrlob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by DLand ^TALK 20: 20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

A list of diffs that indicate this instance of sockpuppetry would be enormous. It would be sufficient to view any or all of these users' respective user pages to see that they are all the same person. Evidence includes the format of the user pages, the uniquely strange syntax and literary style, the interesting "nationalities" and hobbies attested to, the proclivity to awarding numerous barnstars to one another, the fact that most of the accounts were opened at around the same period of time, etc. etc. etc.

You need strong evidence supported by diffs for your claims. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets. Vassyana 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Interestingly enough, the sockpuppets have not really banded together for some kind of massive campaign of vandalism - in fact, some of the edits actually consist of legitimate information. However, most of the collective editing just amounts to mischief and a nice sum of blatant vandalism (e.g. here, for instance).

Conclusions

No evidence provided to investigate other than vague claims. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:KsyrieUser:Assault11

Suspected sockpuppeteer

* Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
-- stricken by Nlu (talk · contribs) after review of contributions and block log of Assault11 (talk · contribs)

Assault11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yeahsoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Time of flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ksyrie & Yeahsoo

A very strong observation is that their intervals of activity at the discussion page Goguryeo alternate. Take a look at the time when the signatures were posted here. Statistics on their periods of user activity is presented at User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data.
And they often form "1) statement by Ksyrie 2) reply by another user 3)criticism by Yeahsoo" type of 2-bind blocks.

At the same time, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo (and Assault11) rarely communicate with each other, unlike other editors who side one way or the other on the CPOV-KPOV dispute. I believe that any human being would recognize the ineffectiveness of such modus operandi because of the such importance & magnitude of the dispute. Furthermore, Ksyrie & Yeahsoo do communicate with users other than themselves.
Furthermore, the areas of participation in the discussion by the users can also be separate in certain cases. For example, Yeahsoo's the only one who talks to me directly @ my own posts while Ksyrie creates his own post as a reply to mine. In other posts, only one of the two participates extensively while the other is silent (often it's too surprising that both of them would not participate in that single topic)

Yeahsoo & Assault11 are less considerate of their language than Ksyrie. All three of them are terrible in English.

Evidence on the alternating usage can be found at the history tab of talk:Goguryeo, and also some of the examples listed in the User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data can be attributed to that.
Evidence of 2-bind blocks

1

Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL--Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not understand what you're trying to communicate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are really original research. Its not very easy to make an accurate estimate as to how many Goguryeo people assimiliated into where. Also, you must remember that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo and most Goguryeo people followed Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae. Good friend100 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of Balhae?Did the remnant of Balhae become the modern Korean?--Ksyrie 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, some did. Also just as clearly, some were incorporated into Liao Dynasty. --Nlu (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true, this is a fake topic, since even Liao people is very difficult to trace the population of descendants. It is impossible the trace numbers descendants of Goguryeo or Balhae, the only reasonable evidence is the record on tombstone or family tree book. But it is unfair to Korea, since by the time few Korean know how to write (no offense), so it is meaningless --Yeahsoo 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2

Again, no chance for stuff to be listed, like descendants of Goguryeo found in China, and Goguryeo use Chinese characters as writing system, and how Goguryeo kept as a vassal to China in hundreds years.(I bet some Korean hero rather undo this article everyminute than let this to be listed on wiki)--Yeahsoo 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys keep completely missing the point. This article should not be "Chinese POV" or "Korean POV" or even a mix of Korean and Chinese POV. This article in its entirety should be NEUTRAL point of view. That means relying on independent neutral (not Korean, not Chinese, not a combination of Korean and Chinese, but NEUTRAL) secondary sources. The main article about Goguryeo should contain a neutral description of the scholarly consensus on Goguryeo, which is that it was Korean. If there is a modern political dispute, then we cite a BBC article on it, neutrally describing the dispute, in a separate section about that dispute. Not a single word in this article should be a Wikipedian's interpretation of primary sources, Korean or Chinese. Etimesoy 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am totally supporting your thinking,But the problem is that whenever there is some sources which favoured somehow chinese claim,it was deleted quickly or modified.it seems a bit of self-censorship by the korean side.--Ksyrie 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

3

To advance,I will take an exemple,before 1800,the USA was limited in her original 13 states.At that time the Louisiana wasn't seen as American as Today,and the frech lived in Louisiana were not recognised as Amercan.And Before the Mexican–American War in 1846,the New Mexico wasn't seen as American as Today,and the mexican lived there were not recognised as Amercan as Today.Ok,I had finished my little speech.--Ksyrie 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some very good points Wangkon. However, I recommend that you save your arguments and evidence for the mediation. That's what I'm doing. I doubt any of the current participants(Assault11, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Endroit) here can be convinced otherwise. Cydevil 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, then why salon.com refer you as a key wiki fighter keeps undo edits, if you really behave that reasonable as you claimed. Well, it is not important now, just hope you will obey the rule in future.--Yeahsoo 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical analysis on the two users is here. This study is shows long-term trends of the two users & may not be helpful as much as the individual instances listed above. It is possible that a single individual is dividing up his/her interests in order to kill two birds with the same stone (to avoid suspicion & to make that attempt more interesting).

In conclusion, a single generalization cannot be made about their activities (in a theoretical world where they are indeed sock puppets). A combination of different strategies and considerations can turn out to make sock puppet accusations impossible & often self-contradictory; however, at specific instances of the editors' edits, that the two users Yeahsoo and Assault11 are sock puppets of Ksyrie can be seen quite clearly.

All the best, (Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Assault11

As for this user, s/he might not even be a sock puppet of Ksyrie. It might even turn out that Ksyrie is innocent & Yeahsoo & Assault11 are the real sock puppet & puppeteer. However, I feel that it is necessary to check this user in case the main three I suspect might not be the ones.
If you look at the user contribution, this user has edited only on Goguryeo & Balhae.
He joined only a month ago. And he's quite familiar with Wiki language. This is his 4th edit.
He has never communicated with another user on user talk pages except on mine b/c I accused him of being a sock puppet. That's kind of weird (if we were to assume that s/he's not a sock puppet). But it's not weird if you were to assume that he was indeed a puppet (b/c the puppet master already knows what this user should do & so the user does not need to discuss his agenda with anyone else).

(Wikimachine 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Additionally, this user has engaged in edit warfare with other users, as shown here.

(cur) (last) 15:53, 24 February 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) (rv to earlier version edited by Easterknight; subsequent edits caused formatting problems with the section; this is not intended to be a substantive edit)
(cur) (last) 15:37, 24 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (I'd like to remind you the name Gaogouli was written in traditional Chinese, also "C" comes before "K" in the latin alphabet)
(cur) (last) 10:59, 24 February 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (rv, why does it matter if the Korean name is on top?)
(cur) (last) 10:43, 24 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110597772 by Easternknight (talk))
(cur) (last) 09:50, 24 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) m (no way should the Chinese name be before the Korean name)
(cur) (last) 22:00, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 21:57, 23 February 2007 70.137.104.118 (Talk)
(cur) (last) 21:46, 23 February 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (→Dispute between China and South Korea - rv)
(cur) (last) 21:32, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (→Modern politics - Clarified some Chinese arguments. There was no proof that North Koreans are descedants of Gaogouli or migration of Gaogoulis into China.)
(cur) (last) 21:12, 23 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) m (→Modern politics - 900 years not 700)
(cur) (last) 20:45, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:41, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:41, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:37, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:37, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:36, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:25, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (Please provide proof of Peking Uni's stance on the issue with the original Chinese sources)
(cur) (last) 20:20, 23 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) (→See also)
(cur) (last) 20:19, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 20:09, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 19:35, 23 February 2007 Cydevil (Talk | contribs) m
(cur) (last) 17:16, 23 February 2007 Korea history (Talk | contribs) m (→Silla-Tang invasion)

Time of flight

Now, this user really humors me. I already posted my evidence in the discussion. Here's a copy.

Look at [17]. Only 11 edits. He first creates his user page as his first edit (quite experienced), on his first edit on a discussion, he is proper with all Wiki language (including "::"). He knows how to sign "~~~~" even though nobody told him. And he only talked on "Talk:Goguryeo". Quite interesting. His 11th edit makes it to WP:SOCK!
That he made his 11th edit on WP:SOCK shocks me, but what shocks me more is that he seems to know about Wikipedia very well - almost too well b/c he talks about "NPOV credibility"! LOL.

(Wikimachine 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Comments

It's non-sense.I know nothing about the other two users.They reason why Wikimachine attacked me is just I and him hold the differnet view in the article of Goguryeo.I will let him to play.LOL--Ksyrie 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, glad to meet you here, Ksyrie. See, someone think if others are thinking different than him, then they must be guilty. I am amazed that that guy spend so much time to invest our speech, hope he could learn the valuable thing in it.--Yeahsoo 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to lose.Assault11 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've got everybody's attention here ....

FYI: Everybody listed here is party to a particular mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo. Wikimachine, please don't forget to sign with a '''Agree''' or a '''Disagree''' on that page. You're the only one who didn't sign. Thank you.--Endroit 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can see Assault11 and Ksyrie can not be the same person simply by looking at their writing style. It's despicable that wikimachine is making this kind of allegation right at this point as a strategy to win the mediation. If they are not socket puppets as you have claimed, you lose all your crediblity as a NPOV wikipedian. Time of flight

The terms you've dictated on the table are not realistic. Let me explain that I at first aimed at Ksyrie & Yeahsoo (you can clearly observe that because I worked only on those two on User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data; however, in midst of the project, I observed similarities between Assault11 and Yeahsoo. Since WP:SOCK procedurals entail that I include everyone whom I suspect to be related to the sock puppeting case, I included Assault11. If I was only to include those that I'm really sure to be sock puppets, then that's falls on my misinterpretation of the WP:SOCK procedurals, not my "NPOV credibility". Now, a question to you: where in WP:SOCK does it say that if you mistaken a user as a sock puppet you lose credibility? And I'm assuming that you can't accuse someone of being a sock puppet if you're in a mediation with them? Ha. Bogus. (Wikimachine 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

By the way, I wonder how in the world a user named "Time of flight" would come by to this discussion. Maybe s/he's the real sock puppet? Sounds like it. Look at [18]. Only 11 edits. He first creates his user page as his first edit (quite experienced), on his first edit on a discussion, he is proper with all Wiki language (including "::"). He knows how to sign "~~~~" even though nobody told him. And he only talked on "Talk:Goguryeo". Quite interesting. His 11th edit makes it to WP:SOCK! Wow. I think I might drop accusation on Assault11, & place a new one on you. (Wikimachine 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I think that Ksyrie might not really be a puppet master. In fact, it's quite clear that Yeahsoo, Assault11, and Time of flight are related to each other. I think I'm on the right track right now. If anyone wants to question my "NPOV credibility" as a Wikipedian, just check my contributions. I was POV in my first edits & those edits were terrible in grammar, contents, etc. But that just proves that I was new to Wikipedia & I was also a kid then. My edits since last year are.... perhaps very NPOV. (Wikimachine 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

There are somethings wrong for the User:Wikimachine/Sock Puppet Data in which User:Wikimachine claims that I had edited the Taisho Jima,But In fact if you have ever looked at the history [19],My name didn't appear at all.--Ksyrie 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine's comparison is not credible,whether he or she fired into the wrong flock or deliberately making such mistakes--Ksyrie 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why? You can do the calculations yourself. If you want, I'll explain to you every bit of the info I've posted w/ reference to the dates. I don't get you. That was a new mistake that I made in attempt to fix a previous mistake. I mean, why would I try to fix a mistake while making mistakes on purpose? Editors w/ good faith wouldn't make such accusations. (Wikimachine 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I didn't do the data myself, as for the top 6 main articles you've edited. It was user edit count tool, which I had linked by your name in the table. Also, I think that you have to click "older 500" in order to show everything. (Wikimachine 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I copied and pasted on the wrong column. If you look in the history, you'll see that I had made a mistake in my copy-paste procedure & I tried to fix it. I guess I missed that one. I'll fix it. (Wikimachine 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

You can check it yourself,I have checked the "older 500",but my name didn't appear.Maybe somethigs go wrong for the count tool.--Ksyrie 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

nNo, I agree with you. I fixed it. (Wikimachine 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

It has become obvious that the Koreans have no genuine interest in this round of mediation. Unfortunately, the Koreans have even reduced themselves to employ dirty tactics that question the very existance of the users in question (myself included). This comes as no surprise considering similar attempts by Cydevil to put down any dissent or opposition to his/her own view. Upon proven innocent, you will realize we are all separate entities who share the same views on the issue. Like I said before, we got nothing to lose, bring it.Assault11 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not form "we" here. Who's "we"? (Wikimachine 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I've happened to step on an unknown IP address user's edit that seemed highly related to this case, so I began intensely on all of you users' IP addresses. There's nothing to hide. Just tell the truth. What's your IP address? (Wikimachine 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Wow. Are you forreal? Is this a joke or something? Seriously now, do you honestly go around spewing out - for the lack of a better term - "stupid" questions like this? If anything, it would be in your utmost interest to NOT further reduce your stature by succumbing to non sequiturs.Assault11 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd react that way, unless you were really a sock puppet & really unwilling to tell me your IP address. I already know, but I want to find out who's lying. Why, is this against the rules? (Wikimachine 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, this very last comment is exceedingly inappropriate. You are allowed to make requests for someone to look into sockpuppetry. You are not entitled to demand people's IP addresses. The users with checkuser privilege will decide whether your request will be accepted. Not you. Do this again and you'll draw a block. --Nlu (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, am I forcing them? This is a "if" scenario (like I would mind giving away my IP address). And specify where in the Wikipedia's policies admins can block users for asking an "if scenario" question? There's such a thing as freedom of speech here. You know, there are other admins too. There's no single rule here. (Wikimachine 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Let me think again. This is ridiculous. Also, I'd really like to hear other admins WHO ARE NOT IN THE GOGURYEO DISPUTE. Wow. Somebody threatened to block me. I'm shocked. (Wikimachine 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Shocked or not, your comment was still inappropriate. There's nothing conditional about your statement. Don't evade. --Nlu (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain further? There's difference between a discussion & a vandalous edit. Edit is something that's already been done. As for the discussion, it's not only the one who first makes a suggestion but also those who reply who constitute the final results of that discussion. Seems that you're the one who's evading. (Wikimachine 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

The problematic part of your comment was this:

I don't know why you'd react that way, unless you were really a sock puppet & really unwilling to tell me your IP address.

This is inappropriate, because this constitutes taunting, and is a less-than-implied demand for IP address. It comes close to, if it is not, a personal attack, and is certainly uncivil. It's therefore a violation of policy. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that should be considered a personal attack, not a vandalous edit that entails a block.

Second, the accusation of sock puppetry already presumes that the accuser accuses the accused of sock puppetry. And I was speaking within that framework of discourse. (Wikimachine 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Furthermore, you should specify where in the laws Wikipedia bans demand for IP address b/c I think that's very unlikely. I could ask my fellow Wikipedians for their IP address, & they could either tell me or they could not. (Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)) ~~At the same time, I'd like all others -Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Time of flight, and Assault11, to reply to my request. (Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC))~~ Stricken as improper; do it again and a block will result. --Nlu (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are blockable. See WP:NPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlu (talk • contribs)

Only those concerning death threats & others of such severity. Repeated personal attacks result in arbitration.

At the same time, you haven't responded to the fact that I am speaking within a framework in which I already assume that those I accused are sock puppets. I think that "personal attacks" are usually name calling, cussing, insults on religious & national basis, etc. Referring to somebody as a sock puppet is only a part of the procedural language. (Wikimachine 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

The thing is, you are not allowed to assume that they are sockpuppets. You can allege that they are sockpuppets, and it's up to the admin with checkuser authority to determine whether they are. Until shown to be sockpuppets, they are presumed to be non-sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, personal attacks are only referred to arbitration if they are non-disruptive. (Again, see WP:NPA.) Disruptive personal attacks -- and yours count -- is blockable. --Nlu (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm tired of this accusation-defend thingie. So, here are the offenses.

Your arguments are flawed for the following reasons:

"Unless you're really a sock puppet" is an if-clause. That means that that is personal attack only if the user is indeed a sock puppet.
However, we're supposed to assume that the accused are not sock puppets. Within that context, here's a double bind: either we are allowed to assume that the accused are sock puppets & the if-clause doesn't apply but at the same time there's no harm done, or we are ont allowed to assume that the accused are sock puppets,but the if-clause applies and there's no harm done.
Calling somebody a sock puppet is procedural. "unless you're a sock puppet" is different from "You are a sock puppet, and I know it."
"Unless you are a sock puppet" can only apply if I was making a threat to get their IP address (why, so that I can hack into their computers?), not the identification of the users as either sock puppets

Again, my suggestion was "if-clause" & also procedural as in proving whether somebody is a sock puppet or not. However, getting their IP address is not the end to a means but a means to an end. Within that context, it is not a threat. (Wikimachine 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Whatever. Again, do it again you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever? Not again... Try, and I'll talk to another admin to unblock me. (Wikimachine 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Your invitation is accepted. You have been blocked for 48 hours. Do it again after your block expires, and the block will be one week. --Nlu (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, see WP:RCU's policies on why asking people for their IPs is improper. As the checkuser admins often put, checkuser is not a fishing expedition. --Nlu (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:RCU only says that you can't apply for check user to prove your innocence. (Wikimachine 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

WP

RCU filed.

It was filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Assault11. (Wikimachine 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Conclusions

I have no access to checkuser; therefore, nothing close to complete can be resolved -- but -- I checked into the 24-hour 3RR block I imposed on Assault11 back on March 6, and Ksyrie's edits were not disrupted by that block; if Assault11 and Ksyrie were editing from the same IP, a block on Assault11 (as I disabled all edits from his IP as part of the block option) would have blocked Ksyrie.
The same cannot be said about Yeahsoo and Time of flight, neither of whom edited during the window of that block. This doesn't prove sockpuppetry; it just does not disprove it.
With this being the case, I am modifying the report as a report against Assault11 and removing Ksyrie from the report. --Nlu (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I want to make sure that the people who are following this case understand that this page is not Checkuser. Cases filed on this page are judged on the basis of the accounts' behavior only. If IP confirmation is needed, this case needs to be filed at WP:RCU. This case probably should be sent there, since the SSP page receives very little admin attention. If this case is filed at WP:RCU, I would strongly recommend that you make the evidence much shorter; a lot of the stuff above seems like complaints, rather than a concise presentation of policy violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I don't think that the situation meets the requirements specified by WP:RCU. (Wikimachine 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it does. Assault11, and Yeahsoo combined engaged in 3RR violation (if we were to assume that they're sock puppets). (Wikimachine 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Then file a RCU. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations against DefenderofGaogouli (talk · contribs), et al., are not proper sockpuppetry accusations; rather, they're accusations of, effectively, edit warring and vandalism without sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. File in proper places (WP:ANI, for example). They will not be acted on here (by me, anyway), due to a thorough lack of evidence presented. (Specifically, this is now a report against Assault11; those accounts may still be someone's sockpuppet, but there's no evidence presented that they are Assault11's. File a separate report if you have to.) --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing this one up as unlikely. There's a lot of mudslinging, but very little hard evidence, and Checkuser has already confirmed that the users are not IP-related. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jonawiki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jonawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Magonaritus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
12.20.13.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (adding ip used to edit this report) Nardman1 10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
71.167.229.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Roguegeek (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both Jonawiki and Magonaritus accounts were created within a day apart.
14:21, August 13, 2006 compared to 14:52, August 14, 2006.
66.208.54.226 contributions started at 10:40, March 13, 2006 which is definitely close to the same time as the users above.
Both accounts and the anonymous user edit the same articles at generally the same time with an emphasis placed on the Monarchy in Canada, Star Wars Galaxies, and O RLY? articles.
Jonawiki contributions vs Magonaritus contributions.
After the Magonaritus account was banned for breaking the 3RR, the Jonawiki account became very active on the Star Wars Galaxies page where the 3RR violation took place.
Both have the same disruptive behavior and the same incorrect understandings of certain policies.
Both support each other fully in every talk discussion at the very same times.
Both are logged in and off at generally the same time.

Both account have the same IP as 66.208.54.226.
66.208.54.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) contributed to:
Where IP 66.208.54.226 modifies edit ‡* by User:Jonawiki wherein he admits to having made edits (here, here, and here) at Talk:Upper Canada College as IP 66.208.54.226
where IP 66.208.54.226 modifies signature to User:Jonawiki

IP 66.208.54.226 is User:Jonawiki

Magonaritus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) contributed to:
Where User:Magonaritus makes edit regarding Harvard College alumnus
User:Magonaritus' edit history matches IP 66.208.54.226

User:Magonaritus is IP 66.208.54.226

Jonawiki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) contributed to:
‡* Where User:Jonawiki admits having made edits at Talk:Upper Canada College (here, here, here, and here) as IP 66.208.54.226
Where User:Jonawiki makes edits on alumni of Harvard College (futher here, here, andhere)

User:Jonawiki is IP 66.208.54.226

Also:

Both User:Jonawiki and User:Magonaritus have never been logged on at the same time, and each always supports the opinions and moves of the other at:
- Upper Canada College and Talk:Upper Canada College.
  - User:Jonawiki's edit (and revert here, here, here, here, here, andhere)
  - User:Magonaritus' revert back to Jonawiki's edit on the same day (and then revert here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
- Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies
  - User:Jonawiki's revert of his contributions
  - User:Magonaritus' revert to restore his and User:Jonawiki's contributions
  - User:Magonaritus' revert to restore User:Jonawiki's contributions; same revert by User:Jonawiki here and here; and same by User:Magonaritus again here
  - User:Magonaritus' defence of User:Jonawiki's work
  - Where both are supporting each other in an RfC

Also:

Each has only ever edited in the same periods:
- User:Magonaritus between 14 August to 1 September 2006; 19 December 2006; 27 February to 4 March 2007; 14 March to present
- User:Jonawiki between 13 August to 25 August 2006; 18 December 2006; 22 February to 7 March 2007; 8 March to present
- IP 66.208.54.226 between 17 August to 1 September 2006, 23 February to 7 March 2007

Also:

Accounts created one day apart: Jonawiki 13 August 2006, Magonaritus 14 August 2006.

Also:

If you were accused of sock puppetry and were told so here, here, and here, I would assume you would sign in and at least start to respond to the report presented here. The three users in questions have not signed in to make any edits since around March 15. Special:Contributions/Jonawiki Special:Contributions/Magonaritus Special:Contributions/66.208.54.226 Seems like a strange time to be silent and even more of a coincident for it to happen at the very same time. Roguegeek (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

71.167.229.158 (talk · contribs) has supported Jonawiki in an RfC at Talk:Monarchy in Canada, restores Jonawiki's edits at Monarchy in Canada, and uses similar criticisms as Jonawiki does at Talk:Star Wars Galaxies (ie. "This article reads like an advertising brochure).

Comments

It seems as though other users have been compiling a far greater amount of evidence against Jonawiki/Magonaritus even before I reported this as seen on this user page. I have added this information to the evidence section above. Roguegeek (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This user/these users have all-together violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. --G2bambino 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the previous discussion pertains to the subjects of this report. For clarification, this is a report for User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226. It would be much appreciated if we could stay on the subject. This being the case, I have removed comments that do not involve them for this report (see this diff). I would suggest making a separate report for other users if they are in question, and, at least for this report, please keep this report's subjects clear. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that doesn't permit me from doing this, but if I did do something in error, please accept my apologies in advance. I'm only trying to keep the report on subject of the three users I have originally reported. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how Gbambino going on the record to state that he does NOT suspect Jonawiki and Magonaritus to be sockpuppets does not relate to the inquiry into whether or not Jonawikui and Magonaritus are sockpuppets? Before this matter is further escalated, I think the record would benefit from some kind of explanation for this unilateral behaviour from Roguegeek.Blunders of the third kind
- I strongly suspect Jonawiki and Magonaritus to be sock puppets. I mildly suspect(ed) WormwoodJagger. I do not feel you are a sock puppet. I hope that's clear now. --G2bambino 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Considering the amount of evidence G2bambino has collected and brought here, it appears he strongly agrees Jonawiki, Magonaritus, and 66.208.54.226 are the same user. Roguegeek (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - This is a quote: "I never really believed Wormwood and Blunders to be socks of each other, or Jonawiki or Magonaritus for that matter". I must say I'm somewhat disturbed by all this. 74.110.212.198 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - - It's just poor wording on my part. I never believed WormwoodJagger and Blunders to be socks of Jonawiki or Magonaritus. I do, however, believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sock puppets. --G2bambino 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - That "quote" hardly matters without a diff (especially coming from an anonymous IP) and even if you could find one, it doesn't take away from evidence I have collected in this report which I have submitted. G2bambino isn't the user in question here and I thought the comments section in this was to debate the evidence of the report. I haven't seen discussion yet that disproves anything I've presented. Roguegeek (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      - The anon IP is User:WormwoodJagger. --G2bambino 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - You aren't understanding the quote. He was saying that he doesn't believe that Wormwood and Blunders are socks of each other, nor does he believe they are socks of Jonawiki or Magonaritus. He did not say he didn't believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus were socks. IrishGuy ^talk 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Sigh.... I'm not sure I get exactly what's going on here. Why am I being accused of being a sock puppet now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.212.198 (talk • contribs) 16:44, March 23, 2007.
- All of these comments on something that has nothing to do with the evidence presented. As far as I can see, I don't think there's anything that disproves the sock puppetry between Jonawiki, Magonaritus, and 66.208.54.226 as reported. Does anyone have anything constructive to add that deals with the actual report? If not, I would suggest moving this separate discussion to a separate area. Roguegeek (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FLAWS IN SOCKPUPPET ACCUSATION presented by 12.20.13.2

The following is a very long repsonse by an IP address 12.20.13.2 to reply to the evidence. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure.

As Roguegeek above stated: "For clarification, this is a report for User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226. It would be much appreciated if we could stay on the subject." As such, here are the counterarguments to the sockpuppet charges against User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226 which Roguegeek erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis that he and G2bambino put together. Deleting the defense against a sockpuppet accusation is outrageous. And it's contemptible, biased and irresponsible behavior for admins like Irishguy to have chosen to stay silent in the face of such an abomination of simple BALANCED justice. Please note, this is not the first time that Roguegeek has deleted :talk discussions as a means of making disagreement with his ideas go away. He did so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and his deletion was reverted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318.

That's an interesting accusation. Can you provide a diff where I "erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis"? The accusation (which that's all it is) means nothing without proof and the only outrageous thing here is that you did so without one. Roguegeek (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The proof you're looking for was already provided. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318. It shows the outrageous action you took to archive active discussions so you can could the points raised that you didn't want to hear.

Yup. Those links go nowhere, but I think I know what incident you're talking about. The page was archived to start new discussion because, basically, none of the long time editors of the article agreed with the edits you were making and spoke as such, but you continued to ignore their voice. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets. The classic sockpuppet TENDS to have the following characteristics: (a) they always edit only the exact same articles, (b) they start doing so as soon as they are created, (c) they never disagree with each other and (d) degrade the quality of the article with no new content that complies with WP:ATT. Please find below 9 weaknesses in the sockpuppet accusation.

(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Bioware_speculation.2Frumor Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".

(3) Aside from the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of 22 different non-intersecting editing interests altogether:

Magonaritus edited 9 non-intersecting articles: O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
Jonawiki has edited 13 non-intersecting interests: Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada, Bushism, John Smedley, Sony Online Entertainment, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

How anyone can consider a list of 22 individual edits a long list is beyond me. In fact, it's pretty trivial. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical sockpuppets will have only edited 2 to 5 articles in which they agree with the puppet master in all 2 to 5 articles. The 22 articles represent 92% of the articles edited by these 2 users. Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies represent only 8% of the articles in which the 2 users intersect.

(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

So what is the reasoning of leaving out the number of those two main articles? Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the link already provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise. It says "one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of OTHER articles or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet ... However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia ...Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown to be not well-founded"

(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

Actually, it shows perfectly that both users are 66.208.54.226. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(6) In the 8 months that Jonawiki and Magonaritus have been in existence, they did not intersect in the first 5 months. So the first 63% of their lifespan was spent apart.

Simply not true. Check the histories. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(7) No consideration is given by the plaintiffs that maybe the 2 accounts sometimes use the same computer: like a computer lab (i.e. they are fellow students), a work computer (i.e. they are coworkers) or a home computer (i.e. they are a couple or room-mates or family members).

(8) Magonaritus had extensive debates in Talk:Elephant and O RLY? per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magonaritus. Sockpuppets are supposed to always and mindlessly support whatever debate the puppetmaster is in. So if Magonaritus and Jonawiki are sockpuppets, why didn't Jonawiki join those 2 arguments in support of Magonaritus?

(9) Sockpuppets tend to have the purpose of degrading the quality of the article. G2bambino and Roguegeek have vehemently fought against providing any negative information on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies. It is indisputable that these 2 articles have improved SUBSTANTIALLY in terms of NPOV and ATT solely because of the efforts and research from Jonawiki and Magonaritus in the face of constant attacks from G2bambino and Roguegeek.

BEFORE - UPPER CANADA COLLEGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&oldid=41805391. Previous to the interventions of Jonawiki, Magonaritus, Blunders and WormwoodJagger, Upper Canada College was a biased brochureware article of weasel words and historical trivia with little citation (i.e. WP:ATT) that lacked NPOV by ignoring major unpleasant truths covered extensively in the Canadian media for the past 5 years.
AFTER - UPPER CANADA COLLEGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_College. Despite the vicious resistance from G2bambino, the article now is more balanced and comprehensive and well-cited. NPOV was established and a plentitude of citations were provided soley through the efforts of Jonawiki, Magonaritus, Blunders and WormwoodJagger.
BEFORE - STAR WARS GALAXIES: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&oldid=111855100. This game is one of the most controversial games in the game industry. It made no mention of this. It would be like writing an article about Nixon but then omitting any details on Watergate. The long article covering some many details had only FIVE footnotes that only covered 2 or 3 statements, so it was a travesty of WP:ATT.
AFTER - STAR WARS GALAXIES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies. Jonawiki and Magonaritus provided most of the 60 footnotes in the article, so now the article complies very well with WP:ATT. Most of the controversies of the game are discussed in a neutral manner. The article is more comprehensive. All this was done despite the histrionics from Roguegeek.

Now let's put this accusation of sockpuppetry in a social context. An important consideration is that the sockpuppet accusation is merely a revenge tactic by a disruptive Wiki user (G2bambino) in order to silence a POV that G2bambino wants to repress. As such, the sockpuppet accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt as the intentions of the plaintiff are suspect. Also, this type of tactic is a waste of admin time.

(A) G2bambino admits that he does not believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets which is outrageous given that he is the one who originally launched the accusation. He states just yesterday on March 22nd "Though I never really believed Wormwood and Blunders to be socks of each other, or Jonawiki or Magonaritus for that matter" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&diff=117053183&oldid=117030150). Now he is backpedalling on his clear wording, giving it a completely separate meaning. How convenient that he asks for deference and clemency for his miswordings but none for those who are accused or anyone who tries to support the accused....

(B) G2bambino has proved to be disruptive in his historical behavior. As noted below, I easily found 25 incidents of violations in WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, vandalism, edit war and sockpuppetry violations involving 18 different Wiki users.

Keep in mind that G2bambino did not report the users in question. I did. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry where you can see G2bambino started the sockpuppetry accusation a day earlier than you.

Umm, you can yell "wrong" all you like, but the fact of the matter is, this sock puppet report was started by myself. The other is an incident report. All of this is pretty easily verifiable so I'm not going to waste my time on trying to prove otherwise. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking WP:NPOV on 5 separate occasions by 3 different users:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Chronology "Can you please explain why your chronology of the Monarchist League of Canada is copied almost word for word from the chronology on the MLC website" AndyL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Chronology "Re: Elizabeth II. As you know, I still think 16 articles on Elizabeth II (and her father, and his abdicating brother, and her grandfather, and her successors) is not very useful" Xoloz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Mediation "Just because the MLC says something doesn't make it a "proven fact". If you keep going on like this people are going to start thinking the MLC is some sort of cult." AndyL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again "The Rouleau quotations are not out of context. They just don't fit your particular interpretation and you have to torture them to try to make them fit. I'm sorry gbambino but... ...Just because you don't like the fact that Rouleau says "British" and would prefer it if he had fit your POV by saying "Canadian" is not sufficient reason for censoring the quotation." Homey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV "Gbambino is again showing his POV by removing factual information that he doesn't like or thinks reflects badly on the monarchist position" Homey
more examples forthcoming

(2) G2bambino has violated or been accused of violating WP:CIV and WP:AGF 8 times involving 5 different users:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#QPC "In response to the offensive message you left on my talk page... You leave a hysterical message on my talk page accusing me of stalking... " Homey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg "In regard to this edition, Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing." Abu Badali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility "Wikipedia has only a few core policies and Wikipedia:Civility is one of them. ...We are here to build an encyclopedia not to debate. It's is a collegial activity not an adversarial one. And so we try keep our focus on the edits not the editors. ...Let's all be civil and avoid referring to each other as we go about summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view." Will Beback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility "I never claimed your comments weren't "civil." I claimed that they did not conform with Wikipedia guideline WP:AGF...One last thing: holding a civil tone does not exempt you from WP:AGF, just for the record." K. Scott Bailey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27 "I'm disgusted by your dishonest and disingenuous tactics and I'm not going to engage in you any further. I have less respect for you know than I did a week ago and I didn't think that was possible." Homey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino "Gbambino, you should be ashamed of yourself ...So I'm sorry gbambino, your "bad faith" charge is not only not proven, it was, if I may say so, made in bad faith." Homey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Buchanan/Archive#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation "Additionally, your accusation of "editorial bullying" is against WP:AGF." K. Scott Bailey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry "Frankly, you are a boor who provides nothing constructive. Dealing with you is a waste of anyone's time" G2bambino
more examples forthcoming

(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism, edit wars and 3RR violations 11 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Talk_pages "Also, you should be aware that there is a rule that you should not revert an article more than three times in one day." Kevintoronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Revert_wars "Please try not to get into revert wars with other users. If you continue, you may be blocked under the three revert rule...." Susvolans (pigs can fly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Violation_of_the_3RR "I have blocked you in accordance with the 3RR policy for your reverts on Monarchist League of Canada. The block is in effect for 24 hours." Inter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Mediation "Removing factual information is vandalism. I've warned you once yet you pesist in removing information on Rouleau's ruling. I've reported the matter on the incident page and am asking that you be banned. Given that you've been banned twice before, once for vandalism, once for 3RR, I expect this ban will be longer if not permanent." AndyL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Queen.27s_Privy_Council "I see you've broken the 3 revert rule. It would be better to sort this out in the talk page before you continue to revert." Astrotrain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#QPC "We have both reverted three times. If you revert again you've broken the 3RR. A silly thing to break the 3RR over as you've already admitted that the point you are reverting is correct." Homey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Residences_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II " see you've almost managed an edit war with User:Adam Carr at Governor-General of Australia. I think you would do well to desist" Scott Davis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#WP:3RR_reminder "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule" Jkelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive2#Elizabeth_II_image "Please stop reverting that page. It is not urgent which image appears on it. I've already warned your opposite number that if he reverts again I will block him, and I will you too, if you should revert." Splash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols "Your recent edit to Canadian royal symbols (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles" AntiVandalBot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War "Hello, I am sure you know about 3RR. I have notified the other editor - please be reminded yourself." zzuuzz
more examples forthcoming

(4) G2bambino has been accused of sockpuppetry and uploading copyrighted images to Wiki 1 time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#DW "Just out of curiosity, are you User:DW?" HistoryBA

(C) There is a concern that G2bambino is engaging in wikistalking and this accusation of sockpuppetry is just another way to game the system in order to intimidate his victim.

(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

(2) Per WP:ANI, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... [to]... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

(6) This seems a possible case of wikistalking per WP:HAR#Wikistalking. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per WP:HAR that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment, his behavior fits wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

I'll add a complaint of wikistalking against G2bambino to WP:ANI sometime within the next 24 hours.

Again, I'm not sure why so much attention is being brought to G2bambino considering I am the one who has started this report. If you tactic is to not legitimize anything G2bambino is bringing to the table, it's a pretty weak way to go out the defense of the accuses sock puppets. Especially considering I'm the one who has brought the most evidence. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you didn't start it. G2bambino did 1 day earlier at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry.
And I think you're lying when you say that you brought most of the evidence. I believe G2bambino did. He provided a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry pointing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp where most of the evidence provided above originates. In addition, you wrote "I have started a sock puppet report on Jonawiki. It looks as if you've done far more research than I have so please contribute to the report. Let me know if there is anything else you can recommend. Roguegeek" on G2bambino's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino on March 18th. The page you initially created on March 17th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&oldid=115901065 doesn't have that much evidence.

It seems as though you're very clearly attempting to draw attention away from the evidence above by trying to discredit the editors making the cases against you. I think you're underestimating the admin's ability to identify this as such and, therefore, have nothing more to say about it other than I leave it in their hands. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In comparison to other sockpuppet cases in the archives, the one advocated by Roguegeek and G2bambino contains flawed reasoning, factual errors, very weak evidence (for such a serious charge) and the taint of political retribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs).

The above anon user's accusations were dealt with here. --G2bambino 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They weren't "dealt with" -- they were "responded to" (weasel words here, of all places?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.212.198 (talk • contribs).

The preceeding has been a very long response by an 12.20.13.2.

You have to wonder why the user accused of sock puppetry hasn't offered any feedback, but all of a sudden we have a new anonymous IP in the form of Contributions/12.20.13.2 who has never made a single edit on Wikipedia before this report was produced, come out and defend the reported users. It's also a coincidence that they discuss in the same uncivil form as the user reported. I find it ironic how quick they are to point out how everyone has broken this policy and that policy, yet they do it in a manner that is clearly uncivil. Just a thought I guess. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am neither Magonaritus nor Jonawiki. Maybe now you'll accuse me of being Blunders or Wormwoodjagger? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs).

Conversation on 12.20.13.2 IP's accusations of wikistalking
The following is a very long conversation on a report filed by 12.20.13.2 for wikistalking. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure.
FYI: 12.20.13.2 is attempting further discrediting by creating a fraudulent G2bambino wikistalking report. The admins there seem to seem to be able to identify what is happening also and are commenting as such. Roguegeek (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC) What's fraudulent is this lame sockpuppet accusation. It's weak. What's valid and clearcut is the G2bambino wikistalking case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs). There is NOTHING "valid" or "clearcut" about that "case." It was brought in bad form, using completely irrelevant "supporting" evidence. I have asked that any of the disagreements between G2B and myself not be used to support your "case" in any way. G2B and I have had our own problems, but stalking isn't one of them, and your accusations of such seem to be simply a desparate attempt to deflect attention from the pretty clear-cut case of sockpuppetry brought against you.K. Scott Bailey 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC) It's semi-ammusing 12.20.13.2 says the wikistalking case is valid since admins have, in record time might I add, completely dismissed that case already. Roguegeek (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC) You're right. Amarkov made a flip dismissal of the wikistalking charge. Oh wait. Amarkov is an admin HOPEFUL, but not an actual admin. Oops, looks like once again you have refused to let the facts deter you from expressing the truthiness.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs). What's semi-amusing is your blind need to attack Jonawiki, Magonaritus, Blunders, Wormwoodjagger and anyone else (like me) who questions your witchhunt. It's because of people like you that Wikipedia is so scorned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a clique, cult or a cleansing of the infidels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs). I love how you talk about yourself in the third person. Do you really think that anyone is going to believe that a random ISP who has no other contribs just HAPPENED upon this SSP? You're digging a rather large hole for yourself. As for the accusation without merit against G2B, you should know that he and I are not close friends or anything. We've disagreed FAR more than we've agreed. I've simply looked at the facts of each case, and drawn my conclusions. They are as follows: you are a sockpuppet, and your accusations against G2B are without merit.K. Scott Bailey 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Umm... actually, about 80% of the defense against sockpuppetry and accusation of wikistalking was actually written by Wormwoodjagger. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry. I just elaborated a bit on what he already researched and wrote. You don't see that because Roguegeek deleted the Wormwoodjagger-provided defence against sockpuppetry as "irrelevent" to the accusation of sockpuppetry. (It's a common technique for Roguegeek to delete counterarguments from his enemies with a polite phrase while admins irresponsibly ignore this because Roguegeek was so polite about it since civility trumps truthiness on Wiki). I just reverted that deletion and beefed it up a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs). So given this latest data, shouldn't I logically be a sockpuppet of WormwoodJagger? Or maybe WormwoodJagger is a sockpuppet of Jonawiki that Roguegeek alleges but that G2bambino denies? I know, I know, it'd be silly to think given G2bambino's historical behavior with pissing off so many people that maybe someone from his past independently believes that this sockpuppet case is very weak and that G2bambino's behavior needs to stop? Believing that someone would independently disagree with you and must be a sockpuppet is a violation of WP:AGF. How ironic that you anguished over G2bambino's violation of WP:AGF against you and yet you so flippantly do the same to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs). Two things: please refrain from bringing G2B's unrelated and irrelevant disagreement with me into this discussion; and explain how you, an unregistered user IDed only by an IP address just happened to log on and immediately (and solely) get involved in these two cases (ANI and SSP). If it smells like a skunk, it probably is one. That's not violating WP:AGF, that's using common sense.K. Scott Bailey 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I have unwatched this page--and all other bureaucratic pages--per the statement on my userpage. Any further questions regarding this issue will need to be directed to my talk page.K. Scott Bailey 16:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The preceeding has been a very long conversation.

Conclusions

Obvious sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. Jonawiki et. al., consider yourself cautioned to edit productively. Try mentorship to get a better feel for how we handle things here. Any editor who reads this is welcome to follow up at my user talk page if problems continue and I will handle the request using sysop tools if necessary. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Artaxerex

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Artaxerex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Faranbazu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Napht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Melca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Arteban1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
140.80.199.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mehrshad123 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The user and his/her sockpuppets appear at the same periods of times usually doing bursts of edits.

In each case the sockpuppets re-edit the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article with (almost) identical information (in a style which can be called Vandalism) slightly changed to apparently look like it's from a different person. Each user appears immediately after the other in an apparent attempt to also circumvent policies on editing. The user and sockpuppets do not appear to be interested in anything other than editing the Reza Shah (and more recently also the Mohammad Reza Shah) article exclusively.

User "Melca" appears to exhibit the same behavior, but on the Mohammad Reza Shah (Reza Shah's son and successor) article. Dubious editing behavior and Personal attacks match the other suspected sockpuppets both in the time that the attacks first started and in characteristic of attacks and edits. Mehrshad123 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user and suspected sockpuppets also exhibit an identical pattern of attacking ALL editors involved with Reza Shah article with accusations of "Vandalism" and highly provocative Personal Attacks in addition to false accusations against the victims in Talk pages and Discussion pages.

Reversion History

"Artaxerex" [20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

Here he comments that "Yima" (the suspected sockpuppet account that had just been created on the same day) "has done a lot of research on this".

[24]

"Faranbazu" [25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

(Reversion of sockpuppet tag)[29]

[30]

"Yima" (this user seems to have been created solely for very specific sockpuppetry on March 15, 2007)

[31]

"Napht" Created on 19 March, apparently with the only aim of participating in the discussion on Reza Shah, with a pattern very similar to the user Yima. Artaxerex again commends him on the quality of his research [32][33]. The number of user id's created for the specific purpose of supporting Artaxerex/Faranbazu's case in this discussion is suspicious.

"Arteban1"

The user Arteban1 has joined the discussion on Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi right after User Artaxerex (and his sockpuppet Faranbazu) were banned for sockpuppetry and violation of 3RR on this page, supporting the arguments presented by Faranbazu. Arteban1 has also immediately filed (albeit on an incorrect page) a request for checkuser directed at all those opposing the arguments of Artaxerex/Faranbazu, presenting practically no evidence for his claim. It therefore seems likely that Arteban1 is just another sockpuppet introduced to evade the ban on Artaxerex. It would be good if this could be checked.

Link to previous discussion and decision on the ban: [34].

Link to Arteban1's edit in support of the sockpuppets and accusation of sockpuppetry directed at many editors opposing his opinion: [35][36].

"Melca"

Comments

The invalid edits and personal attacks by this person have been going on for several weeks. His/Her POV additions are rejected by at least seven(7) other editors.

Examples of personal attacks quotes by user+sockpuppets:

This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. (Note: User continually uses the word "Aryan" and "Aryan glorification" in article -- all references to Aryan were added by him/her.)

In reference to several editors' clean up of invalid edits, user/sockpuppet responds: This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc

Similar attacks have been on-going for weeks.

Update: One of the user's suspected sockpuppets (Faranbazu) removed sockpuppet tag from their user page in violation of policy. [37] Mehrshad123 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update 2: Another of the user's suspected sockpuppets (Artaxerex) removed sockpuppet tag from their user page in violation of policy. [38] Mehrshad123 06:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It must be noted that Artaxerex (talk · contribs) said in one of the messages in the talk page for the article: "Meanwhile I have asked some students of mine to watch the article, for disturbing propaganda and historical distortions." [39] thereforely it is very likely that even if it the user is not doing it himself those are meat puppets. Also Artaxerex has also posted/edited under the 140.80.199.91 (talk · contribs) [40] --Rayis 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to say that I also suspect the existence of meat puppets as pointed out by Rayis, which would be consistent with the posts by Artaxerex referring to him and his students throughout the discussion. I would also like to add that I've had many discussion with User:Melca for a long time, and based on these I think that he/she is in fact only an honest participant in the discussion rather than a sockpuppet. Shervink 11:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Comment - What is this? Why don't you just apply for checkuser to get this resolved? And it is a little odd that the apparent purpose of this is to return to the whitewashed version of Reza Shah's article. Of course this is an unacceptable goal that basically involves ignoring tons of real sources and going instead for junk sources. Will I be added to the sockpuppet list now? Maybe. After all, it is a vast conspiracy, isn't it Mehrshad? The Behnam 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But seriously, request checkuser. They are way too similar editors. He may be adding legitimate information some of the time, but still he should learn to play by the rules. The Behnam 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Faranbazu's Retort

As the record shows my contributions have always been referenced base. Unfortunately, Shervink, Merhshad123, Rayis, Khorshid, SG, Jahangard, Agha Nader and few others have constanly resorted to removing my edits and my references.
For example, in the current version again the idea that Reza Shah's reforms was superficial has been deleted, despite the fact that there was a citation from a seminal book, and I have other valid references.
They constanly rejected any evidence against Reza Shah as "pop culture" without providing any reference.
They have deleted all the references to the corruption of Reza Shah's regime, and his murdering of politicians and intellectuals.
They whitewash the fact that Reza shah destroyed the hard won constitutional monarchy of Ahmad Shah and paved the way for the total collpse of democracy in Iran.

If you look at their User talk pages, they have always contacted each other for coordinating their rv attacks.

please look at Mehrshad123's response to the third party intervention by Scott Wilson, and Melka.

please look at numerous warnings Shervink posted against me.
etc. etc. Etc.

I can not speak for others, but My aim is to have balanced articles on Reza Shah.

Faranbazu 22:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Melca's response

I am not sure why i am listed here. The only apparent reason for me being suspected, appears to be that i cited an official wikipedia policy to Mehrshad123[41] and asked him to act civil [42]. I did not engage in a revert war, in fact i haven't edited the mentioned articles for some time now. Mehrshad123 hasnt even provided any evidence against me, other than "User Melca appears to exhibit the same behavior", so i could just remove the tag from my userpage, however, i choose not to. Can someone therefore please do the sock puppet check asap, so the tag can be removed from my userpage.. thanks. --- Melca 09:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I also think this is a wrong accusation in the sace of Melca, but in the case of the other users there seems to be merit to the suspicion, so there should be an RFCU. I posted the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for now. Shervink 09:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Conclusions

Napht is a clear sockpuppet and has been blocked. Melca and Yima do not appear to be socks, IP is stale and may have changed hands. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Marlon.sahetapy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dr.Sauerkraut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brasileiro1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Le Professeur70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PanteraNegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Identical editing patterns to the same few articles. Using different accounts to evade 3RR and, I presume, to make it appear that there is broader consensus for inserting/removing "greatest" claims into footballer articles. See conversation at WP:AN/I

See:

[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After Brasileiro1969 making three blanket reverts, [49], [50] and [51] I left messages on the article talk page explaining why the revert was a bad edit, and warning of potential 3RR infringement. No response has been forthcoming, but PanteraNegro did show up to make the exact same blanket revert [52]. aLii 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Marlon.sahetapy (talk · contribs) deleted this SSP entry at 12:56, March 15, 2007 and again at 13:19, March 15, 2007 (UTC). It was reverted and he was warned. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Marlon and Brasileiro1969 accounts are being used to vandalise my userpage, and to add uncivil personal attacks. I see this as more evidence of sockpuppetry. He also attempted to edit this page. I reverted it as it messed up the page. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubacca, seems like they just react to unprovoked libel from your end. Numerous editors on here find you pushy and using ill-supported arguments. However, I agree with you that their reactions to you were somewhat emotional; reactions you also conveniently deleted from both here and your discussion page. Why? Talking about manipulating the argument. PanteraNegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 March 2007

Obvious socks per above. I would have already indefblocked all if I weren't marginally involved (Brasileiro1969 reverted one of my edits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-22 05:57Z

Blocked. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 01:22Z

Response by Brasileiro1969

Stubacca, Stubacca.. I am not vandalising your homepage, but am just making my feelings known on your discussion page. Where you have removed comments of both myself and the person you accuse of being my puppetmaster. Now if you were a sport and have nothing to hide, you would leave the comments as they were. Reacted to them; potentially calmed us down (nobody likes being falsely accused, but everyone hates being accused behind their backs - I only found out by looking at your tracks. So why dont you shape up your own behaviour first instead of cloaking your poor editing with policies you half-read and consensus that isnt there. No again, Stubacca -> be a sport and respect my comments on your behaviour. Thank you. I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles. - + - + As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) - + Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are are vandalising my userpage. If you want to make your feeling known on my talk page then make them in a civil way. I consider the rest of your comments an incoherent, unsubstantiated rant. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just want it to be known that I have nothing to with this and that I am highly surprised by all this. But I a bit of surfing uncovered this for me... Have read Stubacca's allegation accusing someone else to be my puppetteer. I also read his threads and reponses on his discussion page (incl. the ones Stubacca's deleted in response to your false allegations, all in an attempt to make your discussion page look clean), football project, and those on the football pages Stubacca has been editing on his little crudade. The one commonality I see is his frustration in losing the consensus on his favorite footballer followed ny his relentless efforts to then trying to get some form of satisfaction. First by vandalizing pages of true football greats, for which Stubacca received an official caution (Johan Cruijff) after a discussion you initiated on football project backfired on you. And secondly by falsely accusing other members who do not share your opinion of puppeteering. Am sure this one will backfire on you as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Below his caution on Cruyff plus an excerpt of the discussion

Comment: Having just stumbled across this due to having some interest in the George Best article over the past week or so, it does indeed look very dubious that most (all?) of the above accused editors made their first contribution on or around March 4, and all on the same article (George Best). I guess that admins with IP address records can sort it out properly though, so if you are innocent then you should have nothing to fear. You don't appear innocent to me though, sorry :( aLii 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: Why dubious? given the number of articles and editors it is a given that this will occur from time to time. My interest stems from being a Benfica fan and my edits to the page in question were minor. Regarding yourself aLii just happen to notice as that you are very keen to revert minor edits of mine on the George Best page whilst you engage in blanket edits of the Johan Cruijff page. Exactly the page that Stubacca turned his attention to after being knocked back on George Best. Stubacca ended up receiving a 3RR caution and then came up with this allegation. Alli, are you a sockpuppet of Stubacca? ...an accusation with a wink. People go mad to easily these days.

Conclusions

3 already blocked by Quarl, and his reasoning looks fine to me, so the fourth is now blocked as well, and the puppetmaster for 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Vartan84

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vartan84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
153.104.75.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tieran11 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar votes/edits/comments RE: articles he nominated for deletion.

See:

153.104.75.181
Vartan84
Insincerecovedwellerskibachatd

Comments

comment: I am not a sockpuppet of vartan84. Though its amusing i would accused of such by Tieran11. Tiernan11 appears to be editing wiki pages about himself and his former band, that was my observation to which he has not responded.

Conclusions

If you can't be bothered to provide any evidence, I can't be bothered to go look for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Griot

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.139.27.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Otheus 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I find the possibility extremely remote that these users are not the same person, barring an exceptional explanation.

Note 1: Timestamps are in GMT. Both users known to be from San Francisco area, so subtract 9 hours pre DST.

Note co-incidents of edit-times: non-overlapping, highly correlated. Note span of articles is quite great, but often cover similar arenas, and on average once every other day, the same articles. This could be two persons using the same computer, and Griot simply logs off, letting another log on and use the computer for a while. Given that these are presumably roommates or workmates, and share a computer, it is unsurprising that they would have similar interests. However, these editing trail indicates there is rarely independent usage -- when one posts, nearly always within an hour or less, the other posts. And while contra-cases can be found, it was generally not the rule.

But again note, Griot started using wikipedia in 2005. The new IP user began using it on Feb 1 2007. Beginning-of-the-month date is important, but doesn't lend support either way (it could be a new roommate, or it could be a new ISP).

Event	71.139.27.85	Griot
1st post	18:57, 1 February 2007	2005
Feb 1 (Aaron Peskin)	18:57 to 19:41	01:30 to 01:39
Feb 2 (Michael X)	22:27 to 22:33	17:54 to 21:50
Feb 4	03:32 to 03:33 (Democrat Party (phrase))	03:36 (Democratic Party (United States))
Feb 4	21:54 to 22:14	21:38 to 21:52 and 22:54 to 23:30
Feb 5	(none)	04:15 to 04:58
Feb 6	01:55 to 01:58	02:03 to 02:05
many more examples
Feb 10	16:52	16:56 to 20:53
Feb 11 (Gavin Newsome)	05:32	21:03 to 21:30
Feb 14 (Gavin Newsome)	03:59 to 04:01	05:29 to 05:56

And so on.

The level of coincidence here is amazing. Either these are the same people, or there is one computer and two people who have identical schedules and highly overlapping interests. Note, both users are highly active and cover many more articles. It's very difficult "by hand" to see if there is a strong overlap in article incidence.

Now starting with the Ralph Nader article wars, we have:

Event	71.139.27.85	[53]
1st Ralph Nader post	Mar 8 16:26	Feb 27 or before
Mar 7	22:52 - 23:46 (variety of posts, not Nader related)	19:16 - rv 19:18 posts on 76.166.123.129 talk page
Mar 8	16:26 - 16:32 2 edits to Nader article	16:06 - 16:17 one rv, plus 2 posts to RN Talk page, plus 2 posts to 76.166 talk page and 16:49 -- unrelated post
Mar 9	06:26 to 06:28 1 each to RN, RN:Talk	02:05 to 02:12 several posts to RN:Talk, 1 to RN
Mar 11	00:00 to 00:11 2 rv RN, 2 edits total and 22:36 to 22:53 rv RN, RN:Talk	15:26 to 18:00 and 20:16 (Aaron Peskin)
Mar 12	05:06 to 05:18 rv RN, 4 edits total	01:48 to 02:22 rv RN, 2 edits total, 1 RN:Talk

So, clearly on March 11 and 12, there were 3RR violations. However, it is possible these were "good faith" reverts and not tendentious.

Comments

My prior filing against Telogen was in response to one of the suspected puppets complaint about User:Griot. Initially, I saw that Griot and suspected puppet (71.139.27.85) edited quite a wide range of articles, and that Griot's editing went back to 2005. So my initial suspicion was that Griot was acting in good faith. Further, before I filed against Telogen, Griot began deleting (his) User page material and announced he was leaving, so I decided the point was moot. But then, after I filed against Telogen, this diff appeared on Telogen's talk page (and other alleged puppets talk pages), prompting me to look into this further.

If these prove to be puppeteers, I suggest that, since Griot has allegedly left, block that user. Further more, ban the IP user from editing the Ralph Nader article.

Submitted respectfully and in good faith,

--Otheus 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Otheus' comments. I've been visiting the Nader page periodically. There seem to be a lot of new WP users contributing to it, and like User 71.139.27.85 (and Dragon Man and Mikesmash and some others), they all seem to know a lot more about WP policy than most first-timers or beginners would, too much to be believable to me. It supports the SP theory. One is a known repeat vandal who's never touched the article before, and this user is outright belligerent. When these user/s contribute to other articles, they're either highly political in nature, and then the edits are very detailed, or the articles are totally random, too random, and these edits are extremely minor, almost insignificant. Their comments have an angry bite. It seems contrived, like the user/s understand/s so well what a WP SP would look, and maybe has been doing it for awhile, so user knows how "not" to appear like one. Those are my observations. Thanks. Telogen 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive but possible both as to whether these are the same editor, and whether WP:SOCK was broken if so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Martinphi

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Myriam Tobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by --Milo H Minderbinder 14: 01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Crop circle: Martinphi makes three reverts: 18:53, 11 March 200720:59, 11 March 200721:41, 11 March 2007. Seven minutes after Martin's third revert (and Myriam's first edit in hours), Myriam arrives, first edit ever to the article 21:49, 11 March 2007, removes text 21:52, 11 March 2007 that had been previously fact tagged by Martin 17:02, 7 February 2007, then after a few intermediate edits, made an edit to a wording similar to the version Martinphi had previously reverting to 00:14, 12 March 2007, inserting both "many" and an attribution for the second part of the sentence.

Remote viewing: Martinphi edits the intro 01:12, 6 March 2007, twice reverts to that version 16:47, 10 March 2007 19:10, 10 March 2007 (which had been reverted by two different editors). Myriam does the next revert to Martinphi's version 15:23, 11 March 2007 and later removes "purported" 21:47, 11 March 2007, as Martinphi has done a number of times at Psychic for similar reasons16:33, 9 March 2007 16:51, 10 March 2007.

Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"

Myriam arrives (after Martinphi has made three reverts to the article) 21:08, 5 March 2007 and after a few minor edits, splits the sentence as Martinphi had earlier 23:47, 6 March 2007 summary: (I gave it better sentence structure). Next day, reversions by Martinphi 17:05, 7 March 2007 (It's a good change. It sounds like the definition of the word. Then the next centence says that some don't believe in it. End of story, totally NPOV), Myriam 30 minutes later 17:35, 7 March 2007 (I saw your change but I don't understand how a person can be just any person who says they are psychic?), then Martinphi 20:45, 7 March 2007 (Don't give in to bad writing and POV-pushing.). March 8, same revert by Myriam 13:44, 8 March 2007 (I think this way of wording it is OK, but it needs to be two sentences, otherwise it isn't good writing.), Martinphi 14:40, 8 March 2007, Martin again 16:38, 8 March 2007, Myriam to a version with wording similar to earlier Martinphi versions from days and many edits earlier (and non-mainstream wording that I haven't seen anyone else propose on this article) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (I think this is better, because it just defines what the word "psychic" means, and then it gives both sides of the debate, so then people can make up their own minds. This said "Edit conflict") (earlier version 16:04, 5 March 2007), Martinphi revert again 18:56, 8 March 2007.

On Talk:Psychic, Myriam says "the skeptical part should have its own paragraph" 18:17, 8 March 2007, a repeat of Martin's earlier suggestions 20:43, 7 March 2007, 16:42, 8 March 2007. A comment about "edit conflict" 18:37, 8 March 2007 which frankly seems like an attempt to make the editor seem like a newbie considering the use of edit summaries and reverts from the beginning. Comments from Martinphi (echoing what Myriam said above): "I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real." 19:04, 8 March 2007. A couple editors agree with Martinphi, and no posts on the talk page from Myriam for a couple days. When I start a new thread of discussion, Myriam makes an "I agree with Martin" post within an hour of Martinphi's response 17:39, 10 March 2007.

Similar patterns at Electronic Voice Phenomenon and talk page, I can add diffs if there is interest.

Here's the diffs only version of potential 3RR reverts (from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi)

Crop circle: Martinphi reverts:

18:53, 11 March 2007
20:59, 11 March 2007
21:41, 11 March 2007

Myriam Tobias revert: 00:14, 12 March 2007

Psychic:

Martinphi: 17:05, 7 March 2007
Myriam: 17:35, 7 March 2007
Martinphi: 20:45, 7 March 2007
Myriam: 13:44, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 14:40, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 16:38, 8 March 2007
Myriam: 18:33, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 18:56, 8 March 2007

Comments

Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.

It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: since filing this I have requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See the WP:RFCU page on "Martinphi", on which the result was confirmed. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo H Minderbinder is quite correct in most of the things he says (and I congratulate him for his perception). But he has come to several incorrect conclusions. First, Myriam is a she, not a he. Second, Myriam is not a sock puppet.

Milo is however right in that a pattern is detectable. Myriam and I share the same computer. We often talk about the pages in question. I have urged Myriam to create a Wikipedia account, as we share the same interests. I have discussed the pages in question with her, and in light of our discussions, she has agreed with me, and I with her.

There is nothing more suspicious in this than there is in the fact that Dreadlocke and Davkal and I nearly always agree on things and support each other's edits, except that Myriam and I are sharing the same computer (we use different accounts, and we have set up different browsers to keep our bookmarks separate). I doubt there is a way to prove to Wikipedia that we are not the same person; however, there must also be a dispensation for two people who share (and have to share) the same computer.

As far as being a meat puppet, Myriam has a right to agree with me if she wants to; she has a right to support me if she so desires; and she has a right to edit Wikipedia as would any other user. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say except that- I agree with Martin. Why couldn't you just have asked us? Myriam Tobias 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just pasted this in from my talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who is a sockpuppet of whom, just want to procedurally note that I blocked User:Michaelbusch for 18 hours for 3RR on Crop circle. I also checked Martinphi at that time and found 3 reverts, but not a 4th. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The allegation is that these accounts are being used jointly to violate 3RR. Since the users have stated that they use the same computer but are different people who discuss matters off-wikipedia, agree with each other, and edit in a similar way, the relevant policy is WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Akhilleus. Michaelbusch 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. By his own admission Martinphi asked his roommate, Myriam Tobias, to sign up. Myriam Tobias has supported Martinphi's edits and only edited on articles Martinphi has edited. That is meatpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry by self-confession; likely sockpuppetry. "My roommate did it" (or brother, girlfriend, whatever) is the canonical response to charges of sockpuppetry notwithstanding that it may on occasion be true. Raymond Arritt 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Clear case of meatpuppetry, the editor admits to it and checkuser confirms it. I assume at some point an admin will close this and take action on the meatpuppetry and multiple instances of 3RR evasion? --Minderbinder 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed relation of accounts, Myriam Tobias blocked. Martinphi is warned that if a (roommate/girlfriend/etc.) also wishes to edit, the two of them should refrain from agreeing with one another or reverting on the same articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Benjiwolf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Benjiwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ttguy 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Benjiwolf is almost certainly back as 83.79.168.184 contributions of 83.79.168.184 .

in this [54] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.

Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this [55] edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.

Benjiwolf is also posting as 83.78.169.134. contributions of 83.78.169.134 This edit again carrying on a dialog started by Benjiwolf [[56]] and mentioning that he/she is "a former american citizen living in switzerland" justl like Benjiwolf states on his user page.Ttguy 08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

83.78.169.134 is anoying Travb on CIA Ttguy 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And as 83.78.187.33 contributions of 83.78.187.33. See this[[57]] Where the conversation started by Benjiwolf continues.

And as 83.78.160.112 contributions of 83.78.160.112 where this [[58]] edit shows 83.78.160.112 editing 83.78.187.33s posting.

83.78.144.13. No totaly definitive evidence that this is Benjiwolf except his interest in Roundup and Glyphosate pages. And the style of his ranting talk page entries of which this is prime example [59] Ttguy 12:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 83.78.144.13 is anoying Tbeatty as shown on 83.78.144.13 talk page

83.79.136.221 This address edits the same pages as Benjiwolf. He is upsetting Irishguy - see this [60] posting on 83.79.136.221 talk page.

83.79.133.133 This [61] edit carries on a discussion started by 83.78.144.13 Ttguy 13:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

83.78.181.214 - usual pages. Usual style.

83.79.189.31 - usual pages. Usual style.

83.78.136.182 - usual pages. Usual style.

83.78.181.65 - USER TALK:Blaxthos, distinct benjiwolf style.

83.78.165.13 Posting personal attacks to my talk page [62]Ttguy 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

85.0.212.81 usual pages.usual style

MnemosynesMusings - reinserting Benjiwolf's edits ([63] [64]). Identical setup for userpage of previous puppet CrystalizedAngels. auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Benjiwolf reports that MnemosynesMusings is from same geographic area as Benjiwolf. Ttguy 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IP addressses begining 83.78. and 83.79 belong to BLUEWINNET. IP addresses in the range 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 are also BLUEWINNET. Bluewin is an internet service provider in Zurich Switzerland. IPs 129.132.0.0 - 129.132.255.255 are Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland[65]. Benjiwolf is in Switzerland.

I am not sure about CrystalizedAngels. However the first thing this newly created user does is go right into an edit war on Rudi Giulani and revert an edit back to 129.132.239.8s version [66]. CrystalizedAngels certainly has a similar style to Benjiwolf.

checkuser on CrystalizedAngels confirms she is Benjiwolf Ttguy 08:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It is obvious from his comments and his edit history that Benjiwolf has no regard for the rules of Wikipedia, nor has he any intent of stopping disruptive behavior. I have personally seen him claim to create "characters" to edit wikipedia, often taking up adversarial positions on issues. This is wildly inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia, and his continued disregard for helpful suggestions and warnings shows that the disruptive behavior will continue until an indefinite block is applied (which I fully support). No need to entertain such trollish behavior. /Blaxthos 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the IPs are all the same person, but given the lack of admin attention to SSP it might be better to report this problem to WP:ANI, and possibly protect the pages that Benji is targeting. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I began dealing with benjiwolf, I have become an admin and would be happy to pass out the blocks/protections but I believe there is a conflict of interest; especially since I've contributed to this and the previous report. auburnpilot talk 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on this (OMG! Probably only because i'm not an admin and never had occasion to find out), but I'm pretty sure I've seen admins block for inappropriate behavior during conflicts arising during stewardship of articles they edit. However, I'm also sure this was done by seasoned administrators... I wouldn't bust a move like that fresh out of the gate (if at all -- I personally would ask another admin to review and act if he thought it was justified). As an important side note, have we gotten a checkuser request on this guy? Best to nab all his accounts and IP's in one swoop. /Blaxthos 06:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

checkuser on CrystalizedAngels confirmed she was Benjiwolf. Ttguy 08:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gruezi Voll!!!...How Slimey! Two of the editors talking about the block were both involved in edit wars with benjiwolf, and are trying to block an editor that had a different position than them!...editors Ttguy and AuburnPilot-129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

actually user blaxthos was also involved in the scandalous FOX news block that started all this where I added factual referenced material stating the controlling owners' citizenships, and the inheritance issues surrounding the controlling shares for News Corporation and FOX and the inheritance of the profit shares...i used several (12 i think) mainstream references to back up the addition, including FOX news stories themselves...some people couldnt even believe that wendi deng was actually his wife and that two half chinese kids (maybe full chinese citizens) could end up with controlling shares, and will at least end up with massive billion dollar profit shares no matter what, even after multiple mainstream refs people couldnt even believe it!!!yet it was of course true, they just didnt want to believe-129.132.239.8 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways...you can't block benjiwolf, its not possible, all you could possibly do is block the university at the ETH in switzerland, the swiss federal library computer system in zurich, things like that...and what are you going to do, block hundreds of IPs??? I'll just keep getting new ones!...yet read benjiwolf user page, the block was unjustified, rules were flaunted and so benjiwolf flaunts the rules...yet go ahead and block other peoples computers, you simply cant block benjiwolf though. In any case, I'll rack up hundreds of IPs quite soon! Anyways I have added a large amount of info to many many pages, all factual, all usually backed by reputable references, and on a large variety of issues, many with no controversy and that are not subject to warring political editing blocks... the block was unfair, plus user Ttguy is a straight up lobbiest editor, has used vulgar profanities and personal insults on wikipedia, only edits on pesticide/herbicide GM food articles, uses unjustified blankings of fully referenced factual material to try and eliminate all critical comments of herbicides, and is the one that has also initiated this little war with benjiwolf in another move to eliminate and blank critical comment on herbicides, he has tried several moves to eliminate fully referenced material from the glyphosate and roundup pages, this is his latest attempt so he has full reign on the roundup/glyphosate pages and other herbicide/pesticide pages, I have not engaged him on the GM food pages, as I actually am supportive of some GM crops depending on the nature of the particular traits that have been bionegineered in, yet I will state that TTguy has made edits harmful to wikipedia in that area too, as his style is simply to blank and erase anything not flattering of the technology, a style which I fully disagree with even though I am for some GE tech, yet as I say I have let him run amok on those pages and havent engaged...in fact while i have edited on many pages subject to editing blocks warring with eachother, usually on politician pages, I have never encountered a user on wikipedia that I have such loathing for as Ttguy, it is really disgraceful some of his edits, if there was one editor on wikipedia i would vote for a block of, it would be him as many of his edits are harmful to the sites accuracy, and all this sockpuppet war is...is a battle between user Ttguy and Benjiwolf, its all it ever was, yet he has a few good edits too, and I really wouldnt try and block most any editor unless its random vandalism and jokes/profanities etc...and PS: only some of the edits on this particular IP are mine, a large portion are from other editors, if you block this IP, you dont block me at all, yet you block a bunch of other people...en schone mitenand!-129.132.239.8 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

for accuracy sake you really need to change the label tag on this IP to say: this user is sometimes suspected of being a benjiwolf sockpuppet, yet many many editors use this IP, it could never be determined to 100% certainty that an edit from this IP was or was not a benjiwolf edit!...is this edit even a benjiwolf edit??? impossible to determine, its easy to copy anothers style or language or frequent spelling mistakes, only the NSA would have a reasonable certainty of benjiwolf edits on wikipedia, only they will have a reasonable list of all benjiwolf sockpuppets, yet even they could be fooled, if the person behind "benjiwolf" didnt sign in to typical sites and used a different keystroke pattern, even they could be fooled possibly, and someone other than benjiwolf could easily make it seem their edits were actually his, all you really can do is look to see if particular edits contribute to wikipedia or are harmful to it, and address the specific edits129.132.239.8 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ja ja...its only a partial benjiwolf sockpuppet list y'all have...ring up the NSA to ask for a more complete version...tschuuuuuuuss-129.132.239.8 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CrystalizedAngels established that benjiwolf has continued to use sockpuppets. I have indefinitely blocked the offending puppet and extended the main account block to one month. The IP's have yet to be addressed. auburnpilot talk 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Range block has been attempted on the 83.78.0.0 and 83.79.0.0 ranges. I'm leaving this report open for now. auburnpilot talk 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have indefblocked MnemosynesMusings as well. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the disruption continues, please initiate a new report. If blatantly obvious puppetry, you may notify me on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:El chulito

Suspected sockpuppeteer

El chulito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

--SameBatTime 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Each of these users have displayed identical characteristics from from their initial setting up of the accounts, to their quick burst of initial activity on subjects such as Polish, Czech, English nobility and Yugoslavian and New Yorkers biographies - then a long dormant period and then when "needed" in a AfD !vote or other RfC situation etc they appear again with a lot of editing especially on anti-Irish republican issues and then go dormant again.

He has used the computers of a New York University library and another computer in Brooklyn, NY.

User:El chulito, Created the account 17:55, 26 November 2006, his first edit was to create a user page with an assorted number of user boxes, all alined to the right and never edits his user page again. He then makes 38 edits in a two hour period on US biographies such as [67], [68], [69], [70]. Then the account goes dormant for two months with no edits and reappears 22:55, 20 January 2007 the following day he makes his first edit on a page regarding Irish republicanism here at the Fergal O'Hanlon page. From then on he makes various edits against myself on AfD's, reverts my work and must importantly makes this edit to the Kieran Flemming page where he removes the Irish language name of Kieran and the Irish word for Volnteer - Óglach. And also accuses me on attacking him on talk page note the capital letters. Then !votes on a number of Irish AfD's [71], [72], [73], [74]. And that day (8th Feb) he stops editing and hasnt edited since.

He also used these IP's which I picked up when he sometimes signed over an edit he made when he wasnt signed in -

User:216.194.0.99
User:65.88.88.214
User:216.194.3.132 - these IP's will prove important as he has used computers from the same system again in his new accounts.

User:New identity, This was proven as a sock after I reported him this edit on the Kieran Flemming page - which was identical to the edit by El chulito, outlined above.

User:O'Donoghue, Follows a similar pattern to El chulito, Created his account with info boxes all alined to the right22:03, 15 August 2006 on his third edit, all aligned to the right and never edits his user page again.

He edits for one day only on a number of pages mostly bios such as [75], [76], [77]. Then the account goes dormant but again reappears 11:43, 1 March 2007 and has been attacking me since them despite the fact I have never come across him before and he made this trademark edit to the Kieran Flemming which he made two days ago. He made this edit which he left an IP almost identical to the above IP's here.

User:Conrad Falk, Started 10 Sept 06 makes one days editing then goes dormant and then reappears 9 Feb 07 - again identicial set up procedure to his other accounts.

He states he is Polish living in NYC and going to a NYC uni which ties in with the IP's above. First edits his user page with info boxes and alighed to the right, only once ever edits this page and then some Polish pages then nobility such as Isabel Maria Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair Stewart Gore-Browne Dame Diana Keppel Countess of Albemarle and then moves on to a number of pages on Irish republicanism including AfD's here, here, [78], [79] - please note that some these AfD's where not formed correctly and could not be found on the daily register but El chulito, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk all voted on them.

User:Inthegloaming, registered 28 August and edited for a day then reappers six months later soley for AfD's that infact where not even registered on the daily AfD digest. See his short history here.

I think User:Veronica Mars fanatic could also be a sockpuppet of the above too. Craigy (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Similar interests in some cases, but I don't see anything conclusive. New Identity appears likely to be someone's sock, but I'm not sure who, and regardless it wasn't used to vote/consensus-stack or for any other prohibited use that I can see. The IP's are possible socks but again I don't see abuse, and what I can see on the remaining user accounts ranges from inconclusive to unlikely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:74.195.3.199

Suspected sockpuppeteer

74.195.3.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Boukenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.195.5.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
199.80.117.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.185.125.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.195.3.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DanielEng 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

A check of the above users' Talk Pages, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] shows identical language, conduct warnings from other editors, incivility from the user, and arguments about the same issues in the same articles.

User 74.195.5.83 continues discussion right where 199 left off. [85]; [86].
Right around the same time, user claims they should be unblocked because they are new to Wiki (with the exact same language and tone as before, and the same claim that they "did nothing wrong") [87]
User 199.80.117.24 makes uncivil comments on Talk Page [88]; is blocked for six months; returned tonight to leave a very similar comment, with a reference to the deleted remarks, from IP 74.195.5.83 [89]
User 199.80.117.24 makes edit with uncivil edit summary that is partially responsible for a six-month ban on March 9; [90]; continues debate three days later, but from a different IP. [91]

User 74.195.3.199 is blocked for one week [92] on February 17; uses Boukenger to make uncivil remarks on Talk Page [93] later the same day, and is promptly blocked by admins as a sock. [94]. User subsequently admits he used the Boukenger account to get around the block and sees no problem with it. [95].

User 199.80.117.24 is blocked on January 6 for a period of one week, [96]; user edits as Boukenger four days later [97], using the same given name ("Rocky") used for IP 74.195.3.199. [98]

Comments

User has a long history of disruptive edits, personal attacks on Talk Pages, and incivility. The writing style, pages edited, and general tone of each of these IP's comments is identical. When editing for one IP stops (or is blocked), another on this list begins. In addition, the user has already freely admitted that he owns the Boukenger account, and that he used it to circumvent a block.

Conclusions

Likely the same user, but the account has stopped editing and the IPs may have changed hands. Please report any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:John Wallace Rich

Suspected sockpuppeteer

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

The Gladius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Scott Wilson 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Use Of Similar Edit Summaries, Each Word Capitalised.
Came down clearly in favour of John Wallace Rich's supported version of the killed in action article with no explanation (diff).
Edited John Wallace Rich's user page to make a minor amendment with no complaint from John.
The Gladius is also self-admittedly a role account. --Scott Wilson 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses from User:John Wallace Rich

(1) I have removed the accusation box from my user page because I did not see the evidence page. Moreover, the links did not work for accusations or confirmations in the box and were in red, and project instructions I saw later instruct about putting the box on a user-talk page besides, not on the user page. Otherwise, I would have restored the box. John Wallace Rich 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (UPDATED)

(2) How come my more important complaint against User:PocklingtonDan has all but disappeared? It used to be at [99]. It occurred during an election[100] and isn't even accessible in the page histories.

The SSP case filed against PocklingtonDan was deleted as vexatious. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pocklington Dan was further harrassed - as was I - by the baseless accusation by a number IP that I am his sock puppet. I am NO ONE'S sock puppet. This is the second baseless accusation against me, and is irritating, frankly. Stillstudying 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this whole mess, User:John Wallace Rich made an initial sockpuppet accusation against me that was removed before I even got round to looking at it (ie almost immediately) because an admin judged it to be WP:POINT rather than a genuine concern. I'm not even sure who I was accused of being a sockpuppet of, or who I was meant to be sockpuppeting. I understand that an anonymous IP who may or may not be User:John Wallace Rich then made a further claim of sockpuppetry against me, claiming that User:Stillstudying was my sockpuppet, or vice versa. Just to state that I believe that as of today both claims have been dismissed by admins without detailed investigations as lacking evidence. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, am happy to submit to any checks to clear any such allegations up, and would advise that making sockpuppetry claims against others is not a worthwhile defence against sockpuppetry allegations against yourself. Such retaliatory claims, however baseless or otherwise, are irrelevant in considering the sockpuppetry claims relating to your own account. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(3) Scott Wilson has a lot of different users editing his user page. Why does he complain about it hypocritically? John Wallace Rich 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Sock blocked indefinitely, puppetmaster has been blocked for 3 weeks as a reset of the block the puppet was used to evade. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:195.82.106.244

Suspected sockpuppeteer

195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I suspect that this is another incarnation of a persistent banned editor [101]. The user has created the account with the first edit comment saying, "Welcome to well hung wikipedians!", waiting from 1st of March till the till now to edit the semi-protected page, Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University then posting a message entitled, "Hello boys!" and making the usual taunts about article ownership and portraying the subject, the Brahma Kumaris, as a crazy and dangerous cult, except this time from a mock-3rd-party perspective.

Previous incarnations were dealt with recently by Thatcher131 [102]. The user has recently actually posted on Thatcher131's page admitting to the sockpuppetry and expressing his disagreement of the ban [103].

Previous incarnations always end up attempting a revert-war of the article. Even though this user has so far only trolled on the Talk page, experience suggests this will escalate in the same manner.

Normally, I post on the arbcom enforcement board or directly to Thatcher131 (and this is getting quite a routine!), but since he/she has just taken a Wiki-break. I am posting through the sockpuppet-reporting channels.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

You'll probably get a faster response at the Arbcom enforcement board. SSP doesn't get a lot of admin attention. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Have added to 244 case on Arbcom enforcement page. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 22:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this on my users page, what am I meant to to with it?. I said 'no person attacks' on my user site and what I said was nothing the same as what he is saying I did. here is it after this.

hi there!

I read about this business going on from a website. I had a mate that was in the Raja yogis, he was gay but stopped all that and cut off from his old friends and so on. I dont no what happened to him as he kind of disappeared from everyone. he might stil be in there. So what are the rules here and issues here? The BKS seem to be controlling this article and u seem to have had a big fight over things. I have some old books and things he used to give us. So what can I do?

Yeah, for sure they used to tell him that the world was going to end back in the 90s but it didnt. That is what he told us. SO whats the big deal? Ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortskirtlonglegs (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see what is worng. There is a whole load of adult material on the Wiki that is much worse than I can imagine, so I do not see what his problem is with me. I think he is going too far erasing my stuff off the talk page before I have even edited anything.. Shortskirtlonglegs

That picture on your user page supposed to be a picture of you, is it? [104] Considering the last two suspected sock puppets of 244 had the usernames "Quickerection" and "Fineupstandingmember" I think it's a reasonable guess that "Shortskirtlonglegs" is part of the same series. Bksimonb 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

this boy keeps removing my stuff off the wikipedia, lol!!! i never said they were a crazy cult but he made it look like i did. There is a problem its not like they believe in Hinduism and there is a lot to discussion.they only got few beliefs and so anyone editing them are going to look they are the same. I would tell him to get off my back but he would probably just accuse me of being naughty if I did. Shortskirtlonglegs

10 days were up. I removed the notice from my page. This chap just want to control the article. IMHO Shortskirtlonglegs

Already handled at arbcom enforcement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mroc31792

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mroc31792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bobby41792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.86.94.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User has been repeatedly adding the same vanity content to March 17 and removing content from Matthew J. Willman Jr under different names. After receiving warnings on the IP and the original account, a new account (Bobby41792) appeared and continued editing in the same fashion as the original IP and account.

Edits to March 17:

22:12, March 9, 2007
22:15, March 9, 2007
23:09, March 9, 2007

Edits to Matthew J. Willman Jr:

22:28, March 9, 2007
22:34, March 9, 2007
22:38, March 9, 2007
23:15, March 9, 2007

Comments: Passing comment: This may be irrelevant, but the deletion log shows: 07:46, 10 March 2007 Rockpocket (talk · contribs) deleted "Matthew J. Willman Jr" (WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability). I've made no attempt to discover whether the article would have passed muster without the above-mentioned removal of content. Meanwhile, the above diffs to that article are inaccessible except to admins. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Pretty obvious sockpuppetry, but all accounts involved have stopped, and I'm not sure the sockpuppetry rises to the level of abusive. Any further disruption of this type will lead to blocks on the accounts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:VirtualEye

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VirtualEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jesus Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Checkmeout101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.52.92.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.52.18.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.52.46.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.52.87.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hojimachong^talk 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

VirtualEye (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. At least one of the suspected socks was created during the third block of VirtualEye. The socks came straight to the mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Perhaps the most incriminating bit is the edit summary; For a while, VirtualEye (talk · contribs) filled every edit summary with the letter "a". When Jesus Fan (talk · contribs) began to edit, he also filled edit summary fields with the letter "a". The ensuing "discussion" can be found on Jesus Fan (talk · contribs)'s talk page. It may also be noted that JesusFan (talk · contribs) stated one position at Talk:Muhammad, but voted in a completely different manner at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. This was most likely a straw-man argument.

Comments

Checkuser might be a better method of investigating this problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

User accounts are obvious socks and have been blocked, the IP addresses have not edited in some time and may have changed hands. The puppetmaster has already been blocked for disruption since then. At the age of this, that block won't be reset, but next time it will be a long one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:AndyCanada

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AndyCanada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Prolancet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Firstocean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.150.244.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yankees76 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Between November 7, 2006 and November 13, 2006, a biological value table was mediated on the Talk:Soy protein page by admin Messedrocker, and the result was a table that was placed in the soy protein article.

A key argument for the non-inclusion of this table by the 67.150 IPs (AndyCanada) was the supposed "outdated" information the table was drawing from. See quote below take from the Talk:Soy protein page:

Amusing. The table is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! We should go with the latest 1997 edition available not outdated studies and outdated books!

and

Also, above in the table claims the book copyrighted 1972 but the studies in the book date back to the 1940s? Don't forget there is a newer 1997 edition of the book.

and

If this is a joke, nice joke. The table is a strawman's arguement. The studies date back to the 1940s.

The argument was refuted and table was placed in the article by the administator.

On March 4, a new editor's first edit was to remove the table. See diff.[105] Since that time the user has claimed that the table is dubious and contains unreliable, outdated references. [106] and stated that I simply removed references that are over 50 years old and improved other sentences. [107]

And again here, where the invididual again protests the table because of studies from the 40's - the same argument as AndyCanada (and his IP address) from November.:[108] "The studies are in the 1940s and 50's. First, where did that PDF file come from. Did it come from an anon or an editor you can trust. Did someone make it up on their computor. Hint. I wonder when this guy will figure it out. I want to make headlines about this. Are fake studies in a PDF file made by a nut allowed on Wikipedia. Did you actually verifiy the text of that PDF file. Take a second look at the PDF file. Every time I click and look at the PDF file I am laughing. I can't stop laughing. This is a joke. This is beyond funny. I got a big smile on my face. Your move. Cheers"

On a smaller scale, even the user's User page is similar.

See [109]
As well as one of the RFCU-proven socks [110]*And then this edit here by AndyCanada:[111]
And another sock [112]

The "new" material [113] submitted for inclusion in place of the table was also submitted [114] to another article by Firstocean‎ (talk · contribs), another "new" editor who is restoring POV material first implemented by AndyCanada before being indef. blocked.

And lastly is the tone of writing an use of common words like "Hint" in certain situations.

See edit by AndyCanada using "hint" [115]

And recent edit by Prolancet using it the same way. [116]

I have searched numerous talk pages and user talk pages, and have not come across usage of the word "Hint" in this fashion by any other Wikipedia editors.

When reviewing, please note that AndyCanada is a confirmed sockpuppet of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs), established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely, and Messenger2010 is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messenger2010 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010

(Links: WP:RFCU page on "Messenger2010"; WP:SSP page on "Messenger2010"^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks}. — Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Conclusions

IP is stale and has probably changed hands by now, both user accounts listed blocked as obvious socks of User:Messenger2010. Puppetmaster is already blocked indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:BoaTeeth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

BoaTeeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Snidleysnide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bob 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:BoaTeeth has been uploading various non-permissible images for use in the Bruce Hornsby (which I have been watching now due to the users edits), which have all been tagged by myself, User:Angr and User:Nv8200p. See here for the upload log. The user then stated at 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Talk:Bruce Hornsby the best of luck to others in finding images for upload for use on Bruce Hornsby [117] and was the users last edit to this date. User:Snidleysnide then appeared at 10:42, 1 March 2007 and has uploaded 4 images with questionable status for use at Bruce Hornsby and his/her edits are confined to Bruce Hornsby with the first edit made by the user being a statement at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [118] I thereby think that this user was created to Avoid(ing) scrutiny from other editors as outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors.

Comments

While I am not sure of the sockpupptering, but the user has expressed concern and has reached out for help concerning images, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Regarding images on Bruce Hornsby. I have advised the user as best I could and commented on their talk page that I would watch the images until they were confirmed through permission. If they weren't in a week, I was going to look into further steps. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Accusation

I'm not a sock puppet, but I'm not an experienced image uploader. I had been watching the ongoing discussion on Bruce Hornsby and other musicians' pages regarding image uploading, and I contacted the owner and operator of http://www.bruuuce.com, a fan website for Hornsby. Please see my talk page for a discussion regarding my reasoning for tagging the images on the Hornsby page the way that they've been tagged. I've been in touch with User:Moeron regarding my image contributions ever since User:Moeron first made me aware that I had committed an error in image tagging. I'm waiting for an answer from someone more experienced than myself in terms of the tagging, then I will send copies of my request and Si Twining's confirmations to Wikipedia for review. I don't want to submit the request/confirmation for review until the images have been properly tagged. I do not know and am not in any way affiliated with User:BoaTeeth, and, in fact, from the talk page on the Bruce Hornsby article, I have the impression that User:BoaTeeth, after making a number of substantive additions to the text of the Bruce Hornsby article has ceased attempting to upload images. I do not know if this will continue to be the case, but based upon this assumption, I took it upon myself to try to add images to the article. I can understand, based upon the lengthy exchanges between User:Grcampbell and User:BoaTeeth, the cause for suspicion and for frustration, but I must also say that I am disappointed, having set up an account to attempt to upload images for the first time and having previously been an anonymous user of Wikipedia, that the community has not been more inviting and more assuming of good faith with my efforts. In disappointment, Snidleysnide 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Accusation/2

For what it is worth, permissions have been sent to the m:OTRS system for all of the images that I have uploaded, further distancing my actions from those of any other inexperienced image uploaders, in this case User:BoaTeeth. Additional evidence of my good faith can be observed by my conversations seeking help from other, more experienced users, both on the Help Desk and from User:Cremepuff222. I'd appreciate the removal of the sock puppet tag from my user page. Snidleysnide 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Accusation/3

Given the high level of protest surrounding the image uploads to the Bruce Hornsby article, I've also followed up upon my initial request at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [119], corresponding on talk pages with User:Mecu. As a result of these correspondences, I've independently reconfirmed the use of the images as well as the copyright owner's approval of the tagging of the images (as released to Public Domain) and the copyright owner's approval of the phrasing of the "reason given" passage of the Public Domain tagging. Although, as I mentioned before, I am a relatively inexperienced image uploader, I have been a frequent editor of Wikipedia via anonymous IP address. The creation of my account, corresponding so closely to the uploading of images, IS due to the fact that I created this account EXPRESSLY to upload images (something that cannot be done from an anonymous IP address). I can understand the suspicion that this has caused; however, given the fact that, other than the initial mistagging (which was an honest mistake), I have striven to very completely, very ethically, and very politely document the uploading of these images, always seeking advice from more experienced editors, I do not appreciate being mislabelled as a sock puppet. The images have, as of now, been properly documented, and two separate notices have been sent to m:OTRS. (I have also improved the documentation for other images used in the Bruce Hornsby article). Whatever issues Bob has with BoaTeeth, or whatever issues Bob has with the presence of images in the Bruce Hornsby article, I would appreciate being left out of these continued personal disputes as they do not concern me. Snidleysnide 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Evidence

I have no idea who User:Snidelysnide is. I have given up on uploading images to Bruce Hornsby because I am unable to find usable images. If User:Snidelysnide has been able to find images, that is great. I plan to continue monitoring the text of the article, as I have made a number of edits. BoaTeeth 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

As of 13 March 2007, I have removed the sockpuppetry accusation from my user page due to the fact that 10 days have passed without Bob posting checkuser to the page. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with any users/administrators and encourage anyone interested in such dialogues to contact me via my talk page. Otherwise, it's best that we put the issue behind us and proceed with more productive editing. Snidleysnide 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar interests, but not conclusive. I hope everyone involved has gotten a better idea of the image copyright policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Scubster

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Scubster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Somethinghadtodie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

See this AfD for Blessed by a broken heart

Both User:Scubster (the creator of the page!) and new account User:Somethinghadtodie have posted on it, and both notably share the spelling error of "notable" as "nottible"

Now, Scubster regularly does this spelling error - see this AfD where he shouts a bit. Oddly (or not), there is also a reference to this second AfD on Somethinghadtodie's talk page....

They also write in the same manner - compare User:Somethinghadtodie's contribution to the first AfD, with User:Scubster's comment that starts "Once again..." on the 2nd one.

Also see the history of User:Scubster's user page as to his/her attitude to his/her pages being deleted.

Comments

I'm just going to say that's not very good evidence to accuse someone of something like that. "Like OMG two people misspelled a word. OMG! they're the same person!" if you take that attitude then everyone who spells a word right is the same person.Scubster 05:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That may or may not be enough evidence on it's own, but in addition to that, other evidence has been presented. The fact that you misspelled a word is not what is the main point here, but the fact that another user misspelled the same word, in addition to having a similar writing style. I'd say this is sufficient evidence to make a case, if not to warrant a checkuser. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- How do we have similar writing styles?? That doesn't prove anything, even if two people have similar writing style that doesn't mean they're the same person. That doesn't justify anything it just proves you guys have way too much time on your hands. If you're looking soo hard into two people's writing styles to say they're a sockpuppet then you're pretty much a fucking loser. I do not appriciate being called a liar or a puppet master, BUT you guys can go to hell because GUESS WHAT you may have power on a fucking website like Wikipedia but you're still a fucking no life loser who sits at home on your god damn computer with nothing better to do than look up gay porn and masturbate. go to hell this will be my last response to this dumb ass thing.Scubster 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

it's been more than ten days and nothing has happened with this. so i took it off my page.Somethinghadtodie 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious but inconclusive, possible case for checkuser. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sheep nuts

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sheep nuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Johnny the third (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pedro the second (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Sheep nuts was blocked on Feb 15, 2007 for disruptive edits. An edit on that date by Sheep nuts to John (name) added "Johnny will rule the world!!!" [120]. Today (March 2, 2007) at 18:30 UTC, User:Pedro the second edited John (name) and at 18:35 UTC, User:Johnny the third edited the same page. In both cases the accounts were only just created. The vandalism was identical in both cases [121] and [122], and included the phase, "Johnny will rule the world!!!" in addition to an anti-Wal-mart statement.

Comments

Pretty clear sockpuppetry, but I can't find how long Sheep nuts was blocked for, to know how to deal with the socks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From the block log for User:Sheep nuts, "02:30, February 15, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sheep nuts (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism account, etc)". Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Obvious vandal socks, blocked indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Wptfe

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wptfe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nrh15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: User:Mysid

Evidence

The suspected master account was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Claudette Colbert. Has been warned for previous sockpuppetry (editing under e.g. Wbrz (talk · contribs) and 218.217.208.122 (talk · contribs)). The suspected sockpuppet account is being used in the same manner. The user often seems to edit under different IPs before logging in. –mysid ☎ 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Sock blocked, page semiprotected to prevent further disruption by the IP accounts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:216.83.121.194

Suspected sockpuppeteer

216.83.121.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

A2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Doctor35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Doctor39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
UNK222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

oakster TALK 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The user has continued to create new accounts and vandalising articles the same manner as before. A previous report was made by myself before (at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194) displaying the type of edits the user does.

Comments

I agree, this user is making the exact same types of edits as User:Doctor33, one being to constantly add stuff about Bratz to wrestling related articles (stuff like "This event was sponsored by Bratz: Forever Diamondz"). TJ Spyke 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Add User:Doctor39 to this. TJ Spyke 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- UNK222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added. -- Oakster Talk 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Socks all blocked. The IP appears to have been making constructive edits recently, hopefully it's changed hands. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Rbaish

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rbaish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: futurebird 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This user came out of nowhere and replaced text to Black supremacy that User:Rbaish had replaced previously. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy&curid=65426&diff=103774314&oldid=103772515

User ~~vandalised~~ POV editing the page Cool (aesthetic) [123]...twice [124] three times...[125]...[126] ... four times.

Editing the IFD tag [127] (I have no idea how an IP user would know about this)

Edited my userpage [128] Looks to me like Rbaish was just bein' friendly. You are a graffiti fan so he put a little there. But you deleted it. NIMBY? <--unsigned comment from 71.112.7.212

Tried to imform him of this but he deleted it from his talk page [129]... twice [130]

Has a history of deleting warnings from his talk page [131],

Rbaish deleted an entire sourced section and a graphic from White Christian male twice, even though I had brought up the idea of adding this new and sourced information on the talk page to help balance the article. 10:51, March 1, 2007 (deleted info was restored by user:Berserkerz Crit and then deleted again within the hour --> ) 11:42, March 1, 2007 I have not reverted this change to avoid an "edit war" futurebird 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ... thrid time 17:40, March 1, 2007 futurebird 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

~~71.112.7.212 deleted information from Cool (aesthetic) again... this is getting old. ---> 22:10, March 1, 2007~~ Doh! All IPs must look the same to me. This was not 71.112.7.212, but rather 71.224.241.18... futurebird 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Rbaish vandalized new article on Health and intelligence, changed the name of section heading from "racism" to "racism as an excuse" here 14:56 March 11, 2007 and here again 17:48, March 11, 2007 Shortly after IP 71.112.7.212 questions the Notability of Joseph L. Graves --> 19:24, March 11, 2007, 71.112.7.212's edit was not hostile, although, it may have been less than warranted. I include it to show that both of these users seem to focus on new articles that I create. futurebird 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).

Comments

A discussion which is mostly about the conduct of another user has been moved to this case's talk page. Please restrict your comments to the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone clarify exactly how these accounts are being used to circumvent policy? I see some behavior which is possibly a matter for dispute resolution, but I don't see a clear-cut policy violation (for example, the account/IP combo being used to violate 3RR). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can editors that create these things without a coherent rationale be sanctioned or censured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).

Conclusions

Rbaish has already been blocked for disruption, as has the IP. I'm relatively certain it's the same editor, but we shall hope he's learned the lesson. Regardless of that, disruptive editing can and will lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:LOTkid

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LOTkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

72.200.166.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I first interacted with this user because of two edits to the Glastonbury, Connecticut article. The first edit [132] was posted by 72.200.166.120 (talk · contribs), and I reverted it myself. The second edit [133] was posted by LOTkid (talk · contribs) and was reverted by another user. After that second reversion, LOTkid vandalized my user page [134]. I posted a user warning template to his account, then politely asked him about sources for his assertions about Glastonbury schools. He was civil enough in return, but his answers were odd (he couldn't check one school because he didn't drop his kids off there anymore).

Actually not at one of the schools! The other i can but there is still vacaction for them!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.166.120 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2007

As I had the page on my watchlist, I noticed another editor's reversion of what he/she thought was vandalism [135]. Having seen similar edits from the two accounts and with the fact that one was editing the other, I figured that LOTkid had forgotten to log in before modifying his user page and thus I reverted the reversion.

Tonight, LOTkid made some changes to his user page and posted what I thought was an odd edit summary, "Actually im not that other user when im not loged on. Somone else please stop 72.200.166-. by the way i always log on:)"

I then checked the IP's talk page for the first time and discovered that it had racked up a pile of user warnings and a couple of blocks. I then noticed in the history that LOTkid had blanked the IP's talk page [136] then added the comment, "why shouldn't he?" [137].

I asked LOTkid to provide an explanation for all this on his talk page, but as of 1900 (UTC-5) there hasn't been a response.

It is my feeling that this is a case of "Good hand/Bad hand" Sock-puppetry. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Those prior two edits rather clinch the case. I've had no conversations with the anon user yet he answered my comment above about the schools which I only discussed with LOTkid.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2 It appears that this user used his registered account to evade the block placed on his IP address on February 8-9 2007. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Conclusions

Alex had today checked somthing with vietnamese people today. Somthing that there are like 45,000 in poland. I dont care about that.+he speaks slovenian and i cant.:(— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 February 2007 Also 72.200.166.120 has bad language i dont. He has a dirty mouth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2007

Obvious block evasion, and I'm not sure if there are any technical violations of 3RR, but I see disruptive edits and edit warring from this editor both anonymously and on the LOTkid account. 48 hours each. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:MacRusgail

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MacRusgail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

ImpartialCelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Limegreen 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

After a one year absence, User:ImpartialCelt has reappeared, with over half their recent contributions being AfD votes, many of those being deletes for articles nominated by User:MacRusgail (e.g., [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]). There is also an example of this from 12 months ago [143]. Impartial Celt has edited very few pages, one of which MacRusgail was also an author of [144]. He also put a picture of a sock puppet on his user page and called it a portrait.

Comments

The Celtic League article has over a hundred authors. As for the accusation, I have the "sockpuppet"'s email. We are both interested in Celtic stuff. End of story. As I am innocent, I don't feel I have any reason to justify myself, just because I have objected to some temporary interest articles. --MacRusgail 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Celtic League article has around 200 unique edits by considerably fewer than 100 authors. However, I'm quite happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. It just seems rather fishier than average that someone with so few edits should be an active AfD participant, and on so many with which you have been involved. Also, this is not politically motivated, but that red usernames on AfDs often suggest some form of invitation. --Limegreen 03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Per this recent comment to your talk[145] in response to this comment[146], this is not sockpuppetry but canvassing? --Limegreen 07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the times of each users' contributions, I think it's possible that these accounts are the same person. I'm not certain, however, and I think that a Checkuser request might be in order here--it might meet code "D". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

ImpartialCelt is obviously a sock, or at least wants to be seen that way, from the userpage pictures. I've obliged with an indef block. However, I don't believe that the evidence convincingly shows that MacRusgail is the puppeteer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sly-eye

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sly-eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sly-ey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Richwills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Atomic1609 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The user names Sly-eye and Sly-ey are very similar and have removed the speedy deletion template from Kyle collins on several occasions, even after being warned. Atomic1609 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Richwills may not be a sock puppet, but has performed similar edits to the same page as well. Atomic1609 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Check individual user talk pages for warnings about removing speedy deletion tags.

Comments

Note that the page in question, Kyle collins, has now been deleted. Atomic1609 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the deleted history, but these accounts seem clearly connected by the repeated removal of speedy deletion tags on Kyle collins. Even though there's been no activity on the puppet accounts since early Feb. (with the deletion of Kyle collins Sly-ey has no contributions), it seems like the puppets should be blocked, because User:Sly-eye is still active. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Obvious socks blocked indef, puppetmaster blocked for a week. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Adversegecko

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Adversegecko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rockgod89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gazzer2kuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.214.51.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IrishGuy ^talk 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Adversegecko created L-i-C. I put a speedy tag on it and it was deleted and then Rockgod89 appeared and recreated that article (identically word-for-word) and continued to recreate it through multiple speedy deletions. Finally, Gazzer2kuk appeared and immediately speedy tagged two articles I had written. On one of the articles he left the lovely reason of page set up by gay irish man. He next uploaded this image to add to his userpage which is of the L-i-C band.

Surely you can check the ip addresses? We were both logged on at the same time pretty much, and I am a different person to Adversegecko. We happen to be in the same band, and as a result, wanted a chance to put our page online. And our registration dates? Aren't they totally different? Surely if this account was created to sock puppet Adversegecko then it would have been created recently instead of a while ago? I'm trying to wikipediate (lol, made up word) but it's being made harder by IrishGuy's constant heckling, flagging, tagging and editing. Gazzer2kuk 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, it appears that Adversegecko is no longer an account on wikipedia.... surely I can't be a sock puppet for an account that doesn't exist??? Gazzer2kuk 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I am not a sock puppet. I am in the same band as Adversegecko (the band you kept flagging for deletion) and firstly wanted to get the band's details on the site without some noob deleting them, and 2, after you repeatedly deleted the article, to piss you off. Gazzer2kuk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Gazzer2kuk blocked as an admitted meatpuppet and for disruptive behavior, Rockgod89 and Adversegecko have stopped editing but will be blocked upon any further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Rsbj66

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rsbj66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mikestax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Emana 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Shaw Brown. "Mike Stax" is the name of key person that appears in the article Richard Shaw Brown. Mikestax presents case on AfD page to save Rsbj66's autobiographical article. Mikestax has no other edit records and may be a single purpose account. When questioned about identity, Rsbj66 immediately replies to defend Mikestax. IP Check may be necessary. NOTE: Rsbj66 is a webmaster for many self published web-sites and my be able to manipulate log-ons from multiple IP addresses on multiple subnets.

User:Rsbj66 has admitted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Shaw Brown that he had asked his friend to register and comment on the deletion. Therefore, if not a sock, at least User:Mikestax is a meatpuppet.

Comments

Yes, Mike Stax is an open reference who has researched and published articles on Rick Brown and his band in his magazine. His magazine is one of the references given. He lives in California. I live in Thailand. I have no control over his mail or input.--Rsbj66 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rsbj's comment above and on the AfD ([147]) is a violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Not a clear or massive case of abuse, Mikestax appears to have stopped editing. Report any future disruption again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Terryfilene22

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Arthurberkhardt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Terryfilene22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nssdfdsfds 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User is a single-purpose account, created solely for the purpose of reverting the page Center for Consumer Freedom (edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&action=history). The puppetmaster is Arthurberkhardt (contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arthurberkhardt). The purpose of the sock-puppet account is to violate WP:3RR, see the following reverts:

20:02, 23 January 2007 Terryfilene22 (Talk | contribs) (rvv to 102628070 by arthurberkhardt; you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal)

08:36, 23 January 2007 Arthurberkhardt (Talk | contribs) (rvv to 102562931by terryfilene22)

02:04, 23 January 2007 Arthurberkhardt (Talk | contribs) (rvv to102562931by terryfilene22)

01:00, 23 January 2007 Terryfilene22 (Talk | contribs) (Revision back to version 101756199 byArthurberkhardt)

The incorrect use of rvv (revert vandalism) by both, as well as the listing of the version number is evidence that the users are the same. The insistence by each of the accounts that each user is reverting to the other, when in fact all four reversions are exactly the same is also suspicious. The fact that Terryfielen22 has no other edits is extremely suspicious. The two-edit user, Terryfilene22 also has a rather odd edit summary: "you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal", which exactly consistent with what user Arthurberkhardt is saying on the page's talk page [148], namely that the introduction to the article should say that the group is funded by tobacco companies, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. Both users are arguing the same point: that the article should, without evidence, contradict what the group itself says.

Clearly the evidence is compelling that Terryfilene22 is a sockpuppet created to circumvent WP:3RR. Both users should be blocked for breaking the rules in such an underhand way. It is also notable that neither puppet nor puppetmaster has made any proper edits to the page, excepting reverts, and a single addition of a URL (which is non-controversial).

User is also well-aware of the 3 revert rule policy: [149]

Comments

I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group, so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about Nssdfdsfds's dubious pro-CCF edits Arthurberkhardt 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that both users commented at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania State University/archive1 on Feb 13, since Terryfilene22 and Arthurberkhardt are the only commenters there, and Terryfilene has a grand total of 4 edits on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Results

User:Terryfilene22 blocked as obvious sock used for consensus stacking. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Hinomaru

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hinomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Betty bomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nell bomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Kevinkor2 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Activity by Betty bomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_II&diff=prev&oldid=110849528
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hironobu_Sakaguchi&diff=prev&oldid=111064062
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_language&diff=prev&oldid=115736293
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Real96&diff=prev&oldid=115736460
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Real96&diff=prev&oldid=115736508

Activity by Nell bomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Polo_Bridge_Incident&diff=prev&oldid=115803740
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=prev&oldid=116252994
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coat_of_arms_of_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=116480227
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanking_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=116552039

Comments: This pattern was noticed by Kariteh, and he raised the issue on the Counter-Vandalism Unit talk page and WP:AIV.; Both Betty bomber and Nell bomber are behaving in a pattern similar to Hinomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) before he was blocked.; --Kevinkor2 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Betty bomber and Nell bomber have been indef blocked as vandalism-only accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:131.123.177.151

Suspected sockpuppeteer

131.123.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.188.63.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Anthony Rupert 15: 06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Keeps vandalizing Toast by replacing "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade are British breakfast favourites." with "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade were invented by sille in 2007."

Comments

Conclusions

This isn't sockpuppetry; it's a vandal who's switched IP addresses. Just watch the page, issue the proper warnings, and report the IP to WP:AIV if he continues. I noticed that even though the IP is continuing to vandalize and is getting reverted, no one's putting additional warnings on his page, so I've just put a level 3 warning on User talk:131.123.177.151. If you're going to complain about vandalism, it's important to issue warnings, so we can spot chronic vandalizers and block them. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Prince Godfather

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

81.129.181.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

GameKeeper 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Prince Godfather has engaged in a lot of previous sock puppetry Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prince Godfather after he was caught using false copyright info Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#Prince_Godfather_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29:_Falsifying_copyright_info.2C_OTRS_info

His most recent username has just been blocked User:Maddy92.

This IP address reverted an article back to the most recent edit by User:Maddy92 here [150]. This particular article, R Madhavan, is one this user seems to have some WP:OWN issues with.

IP user is editing other articles user:Prince Godfather previously made edits to, in smae style. Minor edits with no edit summaries.

Comments

Conclusions

Fairly straightforward abuse of WP:SOCK. Blocked IP address for a while. --Yamla 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Slooking

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Slooking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ghost6600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Saligron 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Vandalized Dippin' Dots with same graffiti within four hour time frame:

Slooking diff
Ghost6600 diff

Comments

Conclusions

Might be same person, but this is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry--each account has just one contribution. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:68.162.247.229

Suspected sockpuppeteer

68.162.247.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.160.165.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.154.10.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.162.243.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ranma9617 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Twice in the past 3 weeks, 2 anon IP users have vandalized the WHDH-TV homepage, incoorctly identifying the station as an NBC O&O. [151] [152] Both times, the nonsense edits were reverted by either myself or User:Gridlock Joe. Both IP users have also vandalized other TV station pages(incorrectly changing ownership and/or other information) and have drawn warnings, but only 68.162.247.229 has actually drawn a block. Additionally, after my first reversion to an edit to the WHDH-TV page by 68.160.165.46, User:Orangemonster2k1 has noted on my talk page that other possible IP sock/meatpuppets include User:141.154.10.193 and User:68.162.243.40 as the vandal behavior of those 4 IP's is very similar. The 4 IP's, according to SVRTVDude's research(see my talk page), are Boston-based and assigned to Verizon.

Comments

I have numerous times corrected vandalism coming from these IP addresses. All the times, the vandalism is directed to TV pages. Like many times, the ownership is changed on the infobox, inside the article, and on the parent company wiki page, like here on the WJLA page. Most are caught, but I have seen some that good-faith changes are made to the page after the vandalism and people don't notice it. This would be a big problem if someone was looking up information. I recommend the above IP addresses be permanently blocked and if it is possible, someone at Verizon in Boston called the next time a vandalism outbreak happens from a Verizon of Boston IP address. Rock on....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 08:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

These look like DSL addresses, which are dynamically assigned and shouldn't be permanently blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

This isn't sockpuppetry per se, but a vandal operating from dynamically assigned IPs. None of the addresses have been active for weeks, so closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Winkers6767 HOAXER

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Winkers6767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dodgers7878 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.245.51.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: RJASE1 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Winkers6767 created hoax page Timothy Dees (see AfD discussion here). Subsequent edits were made by User:69.245.51.13 (an ISP in the Nashville, Tennessee area) and from 5 different IPs at Vanderbilt university (also in Nashville):

User:129.59.152.128

User:129.59.150.103

User:129.59.150.135

User:129.59.150.138

User:129.59.181.50

User:Dodgers7878 (note similarity in user names) began editing article on 4 Feb 07. I noticed the edits on vandalism patrol and realized the article was a hoax. User:Dodgers7878 attempted to defend the article on my talk page; when I didn't buy what he had to say, he deleted the 'hoax' tag from the article (the same action that User:69.245.51.13 had done minutes before).

The hoax was particularly egregious because hoax references were also created, and 4 other pages (Anarcho-syndicalism, Industrial Workers of the World, List of Faroese people and Spontaneous human combustion) were vandalized to create links to this hoax. Recommend blocking on all three accounts above (though there's nothing we can do about the university accounts.) RJASE1 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

~~Suckers! All these aliases are sockpuppets for me, RJASE1! I can't be stopped! Winkers6767 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)~~

A related checkuser case has been declined: WP:RFCU page on "RJASE1". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Since he admitted to it, indef blocks for all but winkers, a month for Winkers. RJASE1, an unlikely sockmaster at best, may safely be ignored. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 1 month for the IP, indefinate for the rest. Winkers has done this before, and should know better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Opp2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jjok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wikimachine 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Several evidences.

Their user edit profile are here and here.

Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.

This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...

Both editors have reverted my edits with reasonable explanations in the edit summary with the same reasons "consensus reached" (similarly worded). History is here. (Wikimachine 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

Comments

I think this is likely, but I don't see a smoking gun--a Checkuser might help.

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose edits all relate to Dokdo--the other article he edits, Rusk documents, has to do with the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks. His edits to user talk pages spring from disputes on these pages. Jjok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edits a wider range of articles, but has a strong interest in Dokdo and other territorial disputes involving Japan, and also edited Talk:Rusk Documents about a month after Opp2 (e.g., this diff). Opp2 and Jjok have a similar POV on Dokdo, supporting the Japanese claim to the island. They are clearly not native English speakers, and their command of English is not strong, to the point where it's difficult to understand what they're trying to say. Perhaps because their English is not good, they correct their posts on talk pages multiple times in the space of several minutes. During a revert war on Dokdo from 24 Jan-30 Jan, both users reverted with similar edit summaries (only Opp2 and Jjok's edits are shown):

19:28, 25 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (ｒｖ　This version isn't agreed and argued at all.)
21:59, 25 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. The part of Other Maps and records did not have opposite(See talk page). Opening part is a 12/23 edition. My edit doesn't enter.)
22:36, 26 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs)
07:22, 27 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv.)
09:22, 27 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs) (discussion is still going)
08:24, 28 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs) (rv edits. the neutrarity discussion and mediation process are still going. see talk page for the discussion about neutrarity with summarized past archives)
07:26, 29 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. no discussion and consensus edition)
19:12, 29 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. no discussion and consensus edition.)
00:06, 30 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv Because mutual agreement is not obtained, it is mediating.)

Opp2 and Jjok are the only users on their side of the revert war, and use similar justifications for reverting--discussion is ongoing, no consensus, mediation is continuing.

It's worth noting that Opp2 and Jjok have denied the allegation at Talk:Dokdo#Sockpuppetting. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

These accounts have been inactive for some time. The Dokdo article seems to have significant activity from SPAs, so the situation may warrant further scrutiny, but I don't think keeping this SSP case open is going to lead anywhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Homo erectus3000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Homo erectus3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Homoerectusagain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar name
I actually, personally, saw them create the account
Obvious vandalism

Comments

Conclusions

Already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Nationalist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Central Mountain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vic₂₂₆ 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist for details.

Comments

Conclusions

From the Checkuser case: "Central Mountain (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. The 1 month block on Nationalist (talk · contribs) has been reset in light of multiple use of sockpuppets for evasion. -Loren 06:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Imheretohelppeople

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Imheretohelppeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Imheretohelppeople2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Potatoswatter 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I noticed this guy at Gunpowder. Name says it all. Continued vandalism in same vein. Potatoswatter 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

~~Looks like he actually opened the second account before getting blocked on the 1st.~~ Nope, but he did open it within an hour. User [personal info deleted] and likely has lost interest. Potatoswatter 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the same person, but it looks like he's stopped editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Imheretohelppeople is indef blocked, Imheretohelppeople2 has been inactive since Mar. 2. If he returns, he'll either be a good-faith contributor, or he'll get into the same trouble that got Imheretohelppeople blocked; there's no pressing reason for action right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Belsey

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Belsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.147.189.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zeraeph 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Belsey made a series of edits thus [153], promoting sites owned by Bill Belsey. User:Belsey clearly claims to be Bill Belsey [154]: These edits were reverted. Immediately user:68.147.189.148 makes a near identical series of edits [155]. This user has only made similar edits, that clearly use namespace to specifically promote Bill Belsey, before thus [156] and [157]

Comments

see this for evidence [158] I personally don't think its enough but someone else might have a better opinion. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's so unlikely that there are two indendent editors who do nothing but insert the same spam into the same articles. How could either of them not by Bill Belsey? I think it's more of a careless spammer who sometimes doesn't log in; but it's still nothing but spam, logged in or not. -Steve Sanbeg 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the same person to me, but what is the policy violation here? If he's spamming, just give an appropriate series of warnings, then report to AIV if he continues. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does each account get its own series, then? -Steve Sanbeg 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  - You might want to post this at WP:ANI, since the main account has tried to put the links back in. I know there's a blacklist of spam links, but I don't know how to get things added to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

With no activity from these accounts since Mar. 1, I think it's safe to close this case. This isn't sockpuppetry, exactly; it's someone who uses a named account sometimes, and sometimes edits anonymously. If the spamming starts again, the solution is to protect the page, and if the problem becomes worse, to post an WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Classicjupiter2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Classicjupiter2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

12.196.6.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (checkuser says "related")
Fatsosurrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Punkrockerartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Bill McAlery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser, indef blocked)
Lisa Petrasci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser, blocked for 15 min(?))
Protector777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
Surreal-one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

Dublin Surrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LiquidGeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.72.13.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jem 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I have been the MedCab mediator on the Surrealism (talk) page trying to resolve a dispute. One of the disputees, Classicjupiter2 has had accusations of sock puppetry made against him in the past. When a consensus in mediation was reached, Classicjupiter2 appeared to disappear from the mediation. Then, both User:Fatsosurrealist and User:Punkrockerartist arrived on the talk page, both advocating Classicjupiter2's point of view and making reverts which were against consensus and identically in line with Classicjupiter2's own previous agenda. One of the reasons given for Fatsosurrealist's reverts to the previous version (linking to an external site that was considered to be unsuitable and removed) was that it was of help to his college class. This was subsequently changed back by a neutral editor who felt that this was not a good reason for editing wikipedia. The IP user made 3 suggestions immediately after a previous proposal in a similar vein earlier in the talk page discussion. The two named accounts were created just after the crux of the debate on the talk page and have solely made edits to the Surrealism article. Protector777 also made edits earlier to the article which were seen as retaliation for removal of the links.

The whole case boils down to the link of "SurrealismNow!," the aforementioned website of Keith Wigdor who was previously a user on wikipedia. The first three sock puppets have been used to show fake support for the inclusion of this link and removal of otehrs; Protector777 has simply removed any other links that are not "SurrealismNow!"

The coincidence in timing, the striking similarities in syntax and typing, the timing (one after the other) and the identical agenda of all users have caused many of the editors involved to feel that sockpuppetry to fake a consensus and to push an agenda is occuring. Ordinarily acting as a mediator I wouldn't file this report, but this is severely impeding discussion. Revert diffs can be seen here:

[159] Classicjupiter's revert (one of many).
[160] Fatsosurrealist's revert.
[161] Punkrockerartist's revert.
[162] Protector777's removal of a link that he claims to be spam, and yet leaves to other similar links in.

Talk page discussion from the two named (Punkrockerartist and Fatsosurrealist) users:
Talk:Surrealism#Mediation_Cabal (scroll to near end of section; the involvement of the IP can be seen earlier in this section and involevement of Protector777 just before the section). Jem 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User "Lisa Petrasci" is another Keith Wigdor alias. He's used that name before on other forums. And surprise, surprise: this username was created recently, just for the surrealism article/talk page.--TextureSavant 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

There is a Checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 that has confirmed some of these accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Most of these accounts have been confirmed through checkuser and blocked. The last one that was active is 74.72.13.69 on 2-28-07. There's no point in keeping this open. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:VacuousPoet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VacuousPoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

StudyAndBeWise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.215.40.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:VacuousPoet received an indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. See [163]
User:170.215.40.207 admits to being VacuousPoet (a standard signature of VacuousPoet), and posts a trolling commentary about another Admin here [164].
User:170.215.40.207 makes several edits to StudyAndBeWise's page. [165]
User:StudyAndBeWise page now clearly states he is the same user as User:VacuousPoet.
A checkuser case has been filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet

Comments

I know his other old incarnation, User:kdbuffalo (which VacuousPoet was banned for being a sockpuppet of) rather better. I'm frankly rather surprised to learn the connection: StudyAndBeWise may have been occasionally annoying, but he did try hard to work with people, up until the madness at the end. Still, he says he's the same, so I suppose we must believe him. I must admit to wondering now if User:Estuary was his first salvo in an attack on me, though I sincerely hope not: That would imply a fair bit of duplicity that I'd rather not believe of him. Diffs from both: user&diff=prev&oldid=109916769 user&diff=110759153&oldid=110691313 user&diff=next&oldid=110760009 [166] [167] However, I can't see any connection between the other users Estuary attacked and StudyAndBeWise at th e time, besides all of us, I think, being editors of the Evolution article. Unless that comes up, probably not him. Vanished user ^talk 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser was declined since the accounts have identified themselves as socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So what does this mean? You can register a new account just to avoid a ban as long as you state that you are doing so publicly? I thought it would be more difficult than that. I'll keep that in mind. Orangemarlin 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the intent is more 2Just presume they're sockpuppets and sanction accordingly. However, as someone personally involved, I'm not touching this one. Vanished user ^talk 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Checkuser response basically means "this is so obvious we won't bother checking." However, I already posted about this an ANI and got no response, so if you don't do something, Vanished user, I'm not sure who will... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really thought it meant that just admit to being a sockpuppet and you can do whatever you want!!! So what happens next? Orangemarlin 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose someone sets a block or other punishment on one/both of them as they see fit, and put that in Conclusions? Vanished user ^talk 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

kdbuffalo and vacuouspoet were exceptionally unproductive and uncooperative, in my opinion. StudyandBeWise at least made some valuable contributions before what seems like an eventual meltdown that I still do not understand very well. I am a bit mystified about this entire situation on all sides.--Filll 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should care whether StudyandBeWise was a good contributor or not. I actually disagree with you, and found him to be annoying and unproductive, but that's just a matter of opinion. He is a sockpuppet who attempted and did, in fact, avoid a indefinite ban. At that point, nothing else matters. If he wanted to prove that he was "worthy" of being a Wikipedia editor, he should have taken up this offer.Orangemarlin 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am undecided as to what his fate should be. I do agree with your previous statement that, at the minimum, he should apologize for disruptive editing which he conducted as VacuousPoet and possibly as kdbuffalo. I am certainly willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response, however. I am not arguing that his helpful edits should outweigh his repeatedly disruptive behaviors. The point is, other creationists can be productive without engaging in such tactics; why should he get a pass? After all, this is not some forum to judge the correctness of his or our personal views, but to write an encyclopedia, and in that respect, he has been a negative influence.--Filll 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be blocked for ban evasion? · AO Talk 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's block evasion, not ban evasion. But yeah, the socks of indefinitely blocked accounts usually get indefinite blocks themselves. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't SABW and the IP blocked then? What's different about this case? They even admitted to being socks, wouldn't this lead to an indef block? · AO Talk 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic reason is that admins don't pay attention to the SSP page. Vanished user's aware of this case, but doesn't want to block because he's personally involved. I've posted to WP:ANI, and Vanished user's posted to ANI about this issue, but there was no response. However, it's not as if there's an urgent problem: SABW is "on strike", and the IP hasn't contributed in a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Indefinite block on the registered account, 3 month block on the IP address. If an IP or a registered account has admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked account, all that's really necessary is to post diffs that demonstrate the admission at WP:ANI.

BTW, could someone take a moment and post notices of these blocks at the relevant talk pages? I'm pressed for time today. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Maviswwc

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Maviswwc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

202.45.68.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—dgies^t_c 04:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Maviswwc appears to be a single-purpose account for editing Hutchison Whampoa. Their MO is continually reverting the article to a preferred revision and ignoring all requests to discuss the issue. Edits display a pro-Hutchison POV. Suspect IP is registered to Hutchison and makes the same edits while ignoring talk messages. I allege sockpuppetry for purposes of 3RR evasion and subverting the normal system of warning escalation. —dgies^t_c 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Request checkuser on Maviswwc to determine if they are in the same city or ISP as 202.45.68.57. —dgies^t_c 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. If you want Checkuser, go to WP:RCU. But they won't comment on IP addresses due to privacy issues. Anyway, looking at the times of the edits, it doesn't appear that there's a 3RR violation here--the user(s) seem to know the rules, and they avoid breaking them. Since the user(s) aren't discussing on the talk page the best thing is to go to requests for page protection. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh. Yes they haven't violated the letter of 3RR, but it's not severe enough sockpuppetry to warrant a checkuser probably, so I didn't really know where else to go. —dgies^t_c 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

This isn't a sockpuppet problem. The page has been fully protected, and hopefully the user will now discuss changes to the article. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:River-Dawe

Suspected sockpuppeteer

River-dawe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Howklam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flash man11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marshallben00- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pitchfluker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Miss Mondegreen | Talk 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Howklam, Marshallben00-, Flash man11, River-dawe and Pitchfluker are all accounts that were created today in a one hour period. The first four of these accounts all vandalised the AIV page in the same way, and all of these accounts create pages that have been or are about to be speedidly deleted. I found Pitchfluker in fact, because I looked at the deletion log for Introxasinil.net, an article that River-dawe had been warned about creating, and that apparantly Pitchfluker took up creating. The article was deleted at 31:41, 31:45, 31:47, and 31:58. River-dawe was blocked at 31:49, and Pitchfluker was created at 31:56, and recreating that article is the only edit I can find for Pitchfluker.

Notes by the Reporter

Please note that I've made River-dawe the primary even though Hawkman came first chronologically. River-dawe seems to have been the most active account and got blocked for repeated violations, and Pitchfluker has already been blocked as a sockpuppet of River-dawe, so it seems simplest to do it this way, even though it is chronologically incorrect. It also seems likely that Hawkman is not this user's first account. Flash man11 has also been blocked, but for inpersonating another user (posting a fake unblock message).

Currently Flash man11, River-dawe and Pitchfluker are blocked, but only once did this user create a new account because the previous account had been blocked. Some of the previous accounts had not even acquired warnings.

As has been noted on the AIV talk page, this user seems to have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia [168].

Because of this and because all of these accounts are being used to create speedy deletion articles, a lot of this blatant vandalism is not being caught, or not being caught properly. An article gets speedily deleted, and the user doesn't get warned so the user creates another article and there is no record of their edits or the article creation, so only when the user gets warned or when the user recreates the same article does the user actually get stopped.

I don't really know how this stuff works, but, is this a case where (depending on the IP) account creation could be canned for the IP? Impersonation was not caught right away, one of these accounts has never even been warned and this user seems to have a real ability to slip through the cracks. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

All accounts have been indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Prince Godfather

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cine Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: GameKeeper 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Cine Dude started editing after User:Prince Godfather was blocked, editing articles in the same subject area and re-adding in images User:Prince Godfather had uploaded [169]. The original ban on User:Prince Godfather was for sneakily tagging images with false copyright information see [170] he is well aware how wikipedia works and devious, the User:Prince Godfather was yet another sockpuppet of User:Prin which managed to evade a ban for over 7000 edits.

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:DiamondVoice

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

Suspected sockpuppets

TabloidPsyco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
BLUNDERWOMAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
REMOVALS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RJASE1 ^Talk 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for making legal threats regarding an AfD. Shortly thereafter, TabloidPsyco (talk · contribs) appeared to make comments supportive of the retaining the article in the AfD. BLUNDERWOMAN (talk · contribs) also appeared as an obvious vandal, blanking the AfD page and comments critical of DiamondVoice.

Comments

A checkuser showed that DiamondVoice and TabloidPsyco do not, at least, share the same IP.
BLUNDERWOMAN blanked a report about DiamondVoice's behavior from WP:ANI--[171]. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding REMOVALS (talk · contribs) - Re-adding the same information to the Sinitta article diff as DiamondVoice, diff regarding a business venture with Carl M. Cox, the subject of the article deleted in the above AfD. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

DiamondVoice, TabloidPsyco, and BLUNDERWOMAN all indef blocked; REMOVALS inconclusive per this conversation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:190.53.15.171

Suspected sockpuppeteer

190.53.15.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bacanaleranica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Matteo747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Guacamaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Holand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Judith Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: LaNicoya 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

While user:bacanaleranica responded to a discussion on the talk page, he/she didn't notice they were offline then preceded by trying to disguise their i.p. by signing in and changing their signature as seen here [172].
All have the same motive, User:190.53.15.171 has extensive vandalism edits (including erasing the whole page more than once) seen here: [173].
Both Bacanaleranica and 190.53.15.171 have reverted the same articles and used the same summary as seen here: [174], [175] and all throughtout their contribs page.
User:Holand account had the same motive, to delete large portions of text due to "lack of sources" as written on summaries, see here [176]
Both asking for help to get on the CA wiki project, [177], [178].
All sockpuppet accounts have history of Personal attacking members and vandalism as seen here [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185]

Addition Evidence

Despite never coming into contact before with user:guacamaya and user:mateo747 and user:holand they mention me on the wikipedia talk (&user talk) page as a “racist” and always use my (and only my) username in their text see [186] by guacamaya and [187] by holand
user:190.53.15.171 always mentions how Honduras tope crime in el Salvador here [188] just like user:Guacamaya does here [189] and user:bacanaleranica does here [190]
Now, all these diffs have evidence of editing on articles of Nicaragua and el salvador always over the “crime section” and “travel section”.
Here I suspect the puppeteer user:190.53.15.171 made a “one-time use account” again mentioning I was a racist [191] and user:bacanaleranica to use in ‘defense’ as seen here [192].

Results from [Request for Checkuser] All accounts were confirmed to be from the same I.P. along with Judith Gonzales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Comments

Bacanaleranica has been blocked from Wikipedia as a result of repeated Personal Attacks, for 31 hours. --K.Z Talk ^• Vandal ^• ^Contrib 08:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry. I've given Bacanaleranica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the IP one month to cool down, the rest an indef block. If they'd prefer one of the other names once they cool down, they can switch. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Peterthepedant

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Peterthepedant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Arthur Jakubowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Enyonyam Ababuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

FrFintonStack 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Throughout much of last year, the above user repetedly added nNPOV additionals to the Spiked (magazine) page, removing sourced and relevant work in the process. The user remarked on the talk page that he had "attempted to clarify and add balance to this article, which is after all an encyclopedia entry and not a channel to wage one-sided attacks on the magazine."

On 12 August 2006, the user added this (disputed on NPOV grounds) comment to the article:

The Novo article alleged that ITN's Journalists had presented photographic evidence of Serbian concentration camps in Bosnia (an iconography that subsequent British tabloid newspapers immediately took up to demand a full-scale war against Serbia), to suggest that a new Holocaust on par with the Nazi regime was happening in Europe. ITN's libel case against LM was criticised by a range of witers and intellectuals including Doris Lessing, Harold Evans, Paul Theroux and Fay Weldon but the trial jury sided with ITN and the ensuing legal costs bankrupted the magazine and its publishers. The issue continues to engender controversy and it is difficult to unravel pro Serbian Nationalist propaganda from the anti-Serbian sentiment that filled the British Press agenda at the time. [1] [2][3] (see [193]

Contributions to the talk pages accused other users, including myself, of turning the magazine into a "soapbox" for George Monbiot and "wage[ing] one-sided attacks on the magazine" for including his criticism and objecting to the user's removal of those criticisms.

After an ongoing debate on the talk page, the user disapppeared. On the second of February, a series of rapid-fire edits appeared from user:Enyonyam Ababuo, returning the magazine to its previous nNPOV state, accompanied by remarks on the talk page that "This page is just a front for anti Spiked agendas so I have tried to redress the balance. I hope my revisions are not censored." Of particular note is that amongst this user's contributions to the article was a paragraph identical to that quoted above (see [194]. The similarity between the conributions of user:Enyonyam Ababuo and user:Peterthepedant led me to suspect that they are the same person.

On 2 February, a series of rapid-fire edits were made to the article by user:Arthur Jakubowski, removing mention of Claire Fox, his explanation on the talk page, and a comment on his user page, suggesting that English was not his first language. ("Ms Fox not Spiked so her comments questionable relevant. AJ").

I reverted both user's edits, user:Enyonyam Ababuo's on the basis on NPOV and user:Arthur Jakubowski's on the basis of factual accuracy, explaning my grounds on the talk page. I also gently raised the Sock Puppetry issue by pointing out the identical contributions, and suggesting that users acquaint themselves with wiki's Sock Puppetry policy. This resulted in user:Arthur Jakubowski reverting to the previous version and launching this attack:

Finton: you are transparently on a political agenda and intent to use your POV to distort and Sock Puppet this page. Your use of Monbiot's and Lobby Watch's paranoid arguments illusrates this amply. May I suggest that you move from your soap box and store your Monbiot/Lobby suck puppets in their relevant boxes, address the facts and provide some objective information? So far you've used Wikipedia as a channel for mud-slinging and malignment. AJ

Finton: I have restored the page and will note your invevitable POV driven re-edits very carefully. If you feel that the comments on Living Marxism should be there, then I question the dubious inclusion here. And ditto the many POV edits. I am frankly bemused by your rabid bias. I therefore request you come clean and admit your political agenda and your political affilitations. AJ

Which again includes many of the motifs of user:Peterthepedant and user:Enyonyam Ababuo's (George Monbiot, Lobbywatch, "soapbox", "address the facts" etc.) contributions. I thus believe that the three accounts are used by the same person, and have been created with the intention of adding undue weight to the opinions of contributions of user:Peterthepedant, and of creating an impression of false consensus.

Additionally, I believe that the user has been editing the page anonymously, especially as Peterthepedant previously responded to a number of issues I raised , even though I referred only to IP numbers.

FrFintonStack 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, all three accounts appear to have been created for the purpose of editing the Spiked (magazine) page, and almost all contributions by all the above users are restricted to that page and its talk page. The sole exceptions are an edit made by user:Arthur Jakubowski to Claire Fox, who is a regular contributor to the magazine, and one by user:Enyonyam Ababuo to Institute of Ideas, which is a think-thank closely linked to the magazine and headed by Fox.FrFintonStack 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

So bearing in mind the results of the block log below, and considering that Spiked (magazine) is basically the only page that any of them have been editing, what happens now?FrFintonStack 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions: see [195] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit histories of these accounts don't overlap at all. There's no policy against using an account for awhile and then switching to a new one, as long as the accounts aren't being used abusively. You need to solve the problems on this article through dispute resolution. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Snowolf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Snowolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ti dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ti dave is an extremely new account. Their first edit was an edit made yesterday to my Talk page, on 01:27, March 4, 2007 (#1 in the numbered list below). This is the sequence of events:

1) Ti dave asks a question on my talk page about an edit I made on 20 Feb 2007 to the Dilation and curettage article, requesting that I personally contact them by email with my answer.

2) I reply that I don't generally make contact by email, and answer Ti dave's question.

3) Ti dave responds rudely, suggesting that I "unclench and revert" my edit.

4) I respond that I didn't appreciate Ti dave's tone, and requested that Ti dave take the discussion to the article's Talk page.

5) Ti dave creates this request for mediation.

6) Ti dave responds on my talk page without informing me of the request they made for mediation.

7) User:Snowolf takes the mediation case.

Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I find it suspicious that this brand-new editor knew how to check an edit history to determine who had made an edit, and that that editor had something so specific to say about it. Even if this isn't a sockpuppet of Snowolf, it looks a lot like a single-purpose account, and with the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact, I think this is worth investigating. Joie de Vivre 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a new User/Editor. I've felt no previous inclination to register and object to an Edit here at WP, and although I'm not totally familiar with the editing procedure, checking the history of a page is not Rocket Science. Again, I have no affiliation with Snowolf and I certainly don't feel the need to create a sockpuppet for addressing this situation. Ti dave 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this. I haven't in any way took Ti dave's side in this mediation, or something like that. I've simply found a free (and simple, since it's my first mediation with the MedCab, even if not my first mediation at all) mediation case and see what happens! I've been accuse of sock puppetry! I really don't know what to think. I've got no problem if you want to file a checkuser on me, really no problem. I think I am a trusted member of the community in good standing, who is heavily (numerically, since I've done a good number of edits in a few months) contributing to this project. I really want to know what are "the rudeness of their comments and their inappropriate request for personal contact" means. It really doesn't fit my behavior here, in this case and generally. I thought I've been very polite :-) Well, I'm looking forward for a withdrawn, I'm sure that an accurate check of my behavior here will convince Joie de Vivre that I'm not a sock puppeteer. I have to remind you that you always have to Assume Good Faith. I don't see why you should believe that I am Ti dave. The mediation will continue, I hope. I still haven't any kind of involvement in this matter and I'm looking forward to solve this case. Rembmer, Joie de Vivre, always AGF ;-)

And, if your experience here at wikipedia will brought another time to submit a suspected sock puppets report, please post a notice on the user's talk page. I haven't received one :-( Happy editing, Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre, in my opinion, you haven't presented any evidence that Snowolf and Ti dave are the same person; you're basically asking for a fishing expedition. Moreover, you accuse Ti dave of unpleasant behavior, but you haven't alleged any violation of policy. Multiple accounts are allowed unless they're used for abusive purposes. I'm not an admin, so I won't close this discussion, but may I suggest that you withdraw it? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "fishing". And I did think that an immediate request for off-wiki, IP-revealing contact was unsavory if not classically "abusive". I would have rather submitted a report that didn't name anyone other than User:Ti dave as acting fishy. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joie de Vivre (talk • contribs)

I don't think that the email stuff is so important. You didn't accepted it and that's all. I'm looking forward to mediate the related MedCab case, but I don't see what this report means. Why should he/she be a sockpuppet? Anyway, "fishing expeditions" means that you want to search for something but you don't know what. They're usually discouraged, and a checkuser is done only if the evidences are strong. Happy editing everybody, Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, Ti dave's conduct seems annoying and perhaps inappropriate, but "abusive" would mean that he's violated a WP policy--and you haven't presented any evidence that he's done that. Snowolf is right about what "fishing" means in this context--to act on an allegation of sockpuppetry, we need a clearly identified master account, and strong evidence linking the master account with the puppet(s). If you're truly worried that Ti dave is a sockpuppet, the only thing to do is watch his conduct until you have enough evidence to present a strong case.

By the way, this board is not Checkuser--no one here can check IPs. To request those, you need to go to WP:RCU, but the evidence presented here isn't strong enough to justify a checkuser, which are only done when there's very strong evidence for doing so. There are significant privacy concerns associated with checking someone's IP, which is why only a few users are entrusted with the checkuser privilege--only 13 users have it on the English Wikipedia. So, since it seems that Snowolf is no longer under suspicion, may we close this case? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing, since Joie de Vivre doesn't seem to believe that Snowolf is the sockmaster. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mykungfu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Robotam 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Banned editor Mykungfu attempted to use confirmed sockpuppet account Freakin Fool to support keeping previous edits made on Fraternities and sororities as confirmed and blocked account AfricanAmericanHistorian. Banned editor made the comment that "the NPHC isn't all black greeks" at 17:45, 20 February 2007,[196] account ThickSexy was then created at 17:57, 20 February 2007,[197] and immediately began editing Phi Delta Psi (a non-NPHC "Black Greek" fraternity) and the talk page of Fraternities and sororities in support of comments made by sockpuppet Freakin Fool, both as ThickSexy and anon IP 67.87.197.9.[198][199]

Suspected sock claims that a question/comment during discussion was sarcastic and insulting to the fraternity of his purported membership[200][201]; however, the question concerned critical information that an actual member of Phi Delta Psi would have known and embraced (and was taken from the website of Phi Delta Psi).[202]

Suspected sock follows Mykungfu's MO of vandalism accusations of editors placing warnings or templates of vandalism, and reaction on suspected sock's userpage [203] to other Mykungfu sock suspects[204] appears to be too similar to be coincidence.

Banned editor Mykungfu often attempts to create several "stealth accounts" for both vandalism and seemingly innocuous edits,[205] for purposes of bolstering arguments and possibly in pursuit of adminship.[206]

Suspected sock shows previous knowledge of Wikipolicy, by creating an RFC in retaliation of being reported,[207] a common tactic of banned editor Mykungfu[208]. The RFC contains formatting and wikilawyering in the same manner as Mykungfu, and includes as "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" one MrShannonRawls, an account that appears ~~not to have yet been created~~ to have been created to support his RFC.[209]

Suspected sock follows Mykungfu's pattern of attempting to use anon IP's as support socks and to vandalize warning and templates on his/her various sock user pages[210][211] including sock edits originating from IP 149.68.7.90 of St. John's University.[212][213][214][215][216]

Rebuttal

I do not totally agree with FreakinFool.
He questioned my organization's process as well as their purpose. [217]
At no point have I questioned his organization. Just because I support my organization does all of my organizations ideals. Does he support the current "paper" process or MIP that Alpha's go thru these days?
There are other black greek organizations that aren't NPHC. They include Alpha Omega Nu, Phi Delta Psi , Phi Omicron Psi , Pi Psi , Phi Rho Eta and others. The NPHC include the 9 largest (5 fraternity and 4 sorority groups) but they aren't everything. Phi Delta Psi has chapters in 8 states and is growing.
Some of the suspected sockpuppets submitted as evidence don't even have a contribution history [218] .
Makes innane arguments about accounts that didn't exist [219] to support an argument and then changes it around to suit his argument [220] when he is proven wrong.

USER:Robotam [221] due to my being upset that he insulted my Fraternity Phi Delta Psi. The sixth national black fraternity in the United States. User:Robotam is a member of another black fraternity [222] and has insulted my fratenity my organization with a snide remark questioning their pledging and purposes (which by the way is known only to members of my organization as well as our sister organization known as Sappirres [223]. As a result of this and his liberal use of labeling me a sockpuppet. I initially requested that we move on [224] , but he has continued on with his harrassment. I have filed an RFC against him. [225] ThickSexy preceding comments left by confirmed sockpuppet of Mykungfu 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

See WP:RFCU page on "Mykungfu". --Akhilleus (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Some of these users aren't blocked, and possibly aren't Mykungfu, but the ongoing RFCU should deal with the problem; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kzrulzuall69

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kzrulzuall69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kzrulzuall36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kuru69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Qwertyuoplhgfd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Confirmed Sockpuppets

K2rulzuaIl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kzrulzuall11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--K.Z Talk ^• Vandal ^• ^Contrib 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Similar username. When sockpuppet was blocked, this user started to imitate the admin who blocked the sockpuppet. Signed his name as me, and attempted to get me blocked. --K.Z Talk ^• Vandal ^• ^Contrib 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

All users except the suspected puppetmaster, User:Kzrulzuall69, has been blocked. --K.Z Talk ^• Vandal ^• ^Contrib 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All named accounts are blocked, closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:75.35.218.20

Suspected sockpuppeteer

75.35.218.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hiyowassup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

User 75.35.218.20 blanked the page Clarinet and the page Etiquette with the word 'bob' and had it reverted. Minutes later the page was blanked again with the word 'bob' by Hiyowassup in both articles. --Ozgod 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think the scenario you describe could simply indicate that the user started using wikipedia as 75.35.218.20 and then realized that s/he should create an account instead of remaining on an anonymous ip. I don't think that excuses the blanking vandalism; but it doesn't seem like sock puppetry when someone makes their first few edits using an anon ip address, and then creates an account. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SaxTeacher's assessment, and since the vandalism is not ongoing, I don't see any need for additional action in this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

No action required. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sleachxbhs

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sleachxbhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Flashriver47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Abu badali ^(talk) 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"

Evidence

I edited Sleachxbhs's userpage some days ago to remove unfree images (per WP:FUC#9). Some time after, my user page was vandalized by the newly created user account User:Flashriver47. It's seems Sleachxbhs forgot to logout his puppet account and edited his user own page using the puppet account by mistake (the edition, by the way, was a call to ban-me from Wikipedia). To be sure that it was really sockpuppetry taking place, I asked Sleachxbhs if he was being serious when he asked for my ban. That was the chance for hm to say "Hey! I don't know who put that on my user page!". But instead, his response ("...I was being mostly sarcastic,...") confirmed that he was behind the User:Flashriver47 account. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I am arguing the same case that i posted on Abu Badali's talk page:

"Accusing Sleachxbhs of sockpuppetrty Hey. That was'nt me (it was my friend actually) but I can see how you would susspect me of doing that. If you look at my history of edits, you'll see that i have never done anything like that before, so why would I start now. I'm just trying to help out Wikipedia and create and edit articles that I am interested in. How about we just forget this ever happened, and just let me continue on doing what i am doing? And I take responsability for those images that conflicted with the fair use and have deleted them from my page. Thanks for understanding. --Sleachxbhs 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)"

To conclude, my friend did not know that this would get me in trouble, as he is not a regular Wikipedia user.

--Sleachxbhs 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks probable, but given Sleachxbhs' statement and the lack of activity from Flashriver47, I think no action is required. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing, since Flashriver47 is not an active account. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:FuckTheJewFaggots

Suspected sockpuppeteer

FuckTheJewFaggots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hi my names Bobby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nardman1 16:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Here [226]

Comments

Considering the offensive name of his first account and the offensive quality of Hi my names Bobby's only edit ([227]), I don't think he's here to make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Already indefblocked by another admin. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Hi my names Bobby isn't blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked now. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jackmiami

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jackmiami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Umbaseball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.34.158.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mosmof 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The puppet account is a newly created, and most of the edits seem to be in the same articles as the master's. The puppet's last few edits have been removing copyright violation notices from the puppet's notices and from the talk page.

The IP address has been used to remove copyright notices from Jackmiami's talk page.

Comments

Is there any evidence that the sockpuppets have been used abusively? If not, the case should be closed. There's been no activity from these account since Feb. 20, so there doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

No evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets, so closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Edificia

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Edificia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Edificio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Xhantar^Talk 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Template {{helpme}} was added to User_talk:Edificia by User:Edificio shortly after the Edificio account was created. Comments added, however, are not actually a request for help and instead an obvious attempt at further disruption.

Comments

Conclusions

No evidence has been provided that the sockpuppet was used to violate policy, so there's no reason to take action on this case. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:BoydBowen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

BoydBowen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TrueFuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Sock continuosly edits Brian Krause in the same manner that The puppet master did before being block ([228] [229] and [230] [231])

Comments

No contribs from TrueFuzz since Feb. 8, so maybe this case should be closed. If he comes back and starts the same behavior, he'll probably get blocked pretty quickly. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closed due to inactivity on alleged accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:DavidHomewood

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DavidHomewood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

- Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

During the course of vandalism patrolling, I came across a user (User:80.77.80.57) heavily pushing POV on the 2Checkout.com article, which I reverted. [[232]] The user re-made the changes within seven minutes, and I reverted them again. User:DavidHomewood (non-coincidentally the name of the founder of the company the article concerns) undid my reversion [[233]]. At this point I made my third revert then went to do something else, at which point User:87.233.138.84, User:85.10.219.108, User:88.198.241.107 and User:MacSucks continued to re-add the text to the article, despite efforts by User:Discospinster and User:74.109.137.229 to continue reverting it.

The large amount of reverting and editing to push POV on this article astounds me, and as far as I can tell, it's all from this one user. Additionally, User:DavidHomewood has been uncivil in both edit summaries and talk page comments, going so far as to make threats to get me fired (albeit from a company I have never worked for). There appears to be no intent to actually improve the article here (I did offer to collaborate on writing a "proper" criticism section for the article, but this offer was ignored). Basically, this seems to be just one user with a large number of socks attempting to use the article as a soapbox for complaints about this company, which is disrupting the article quite severely.

- Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Two more socks, this time vandalising my userpage [[234]] [[235]] following semi-protection of the original article. - Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 11:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Given how complicated this is, I'm not entirely sure I've summarised it properly - you may just want to check the edit history ([[236]]) and see for yourself... - Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:DavidHomewood for 24hours due to personal attacks on user:davidjk user page. Additionally I have indefinately blocked User:Davidjerk as it was created only to attack Davidjk. From what I've seen Davidjerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 64.46.38.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appear to be definate sockpuppets of DavidHomewood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Gnan garra 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another vandalism-only account, presumably the same person: User:Fascist_Pig_Gnangarra (already blocked). - Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Aside from one edit by User:64.46.38.145 there hasn't been anything from these accounts recently, so no further action seems needed. Closing.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Gizlio

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gizlio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

64.24.240.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.24.240.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.24.240.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

adavidw 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All of the edits by all these users have been to add spam links to the websites gizlio.com and ozert.com.

Comments

I've added both domains to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

The links are blacklisted and there's no current trouble from these accounts, so closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:VaughanWatch

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TrulyUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Scorpion 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: He's an established (and banned) sockpuppeteer, and many socks have been caught. The administrator who normally deals with him hasn't made any edits in a while. My main evidence is this edit, which matches edits of a previously known VaughanWatch sock: [237].

Comments

Looks fishy, but the account isn't very active. In the absence of additional evidence, I'm inclined to think the case should be closed--if TrulyUnited becomes disruptive the matter can be reconsidered. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Inconclusive evidence, no current disruptive activity. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:UKJ17

Suspected sockpuppeteer

UKJ17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

82.38.218.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

UKJ17 created nonsense page Jim Lethbridge, which was quickly flagged for speedy deletion. UKJ17 was deleting the speedy deletion tags, and picked up a couple of warnings for this. 82.38.218.45 then appeared and began deleting the speedy deletion tags. - RJASE1 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

A sock-puppet is surely an account; this is what is sometimes called a mock-puppet. The trouble is, it's difficult to tell the difference between that and someone merely not logging in when they edit. As the person wasn't using the device to get round a block, to create the false impression of support at an RFC, and AfD, etc., wouldn't it be better just to ask him to make sure that he logs in when he edits (and, perhaps, to block him for a brief period for persistently removing the speedy notices)? This submission seems needlessly bureacratic and time-consuming. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing when I did the nomination. In this case, the short amount of time between edits to the article by these two accounts made it pretty plain to me that this was an intentional attempt to avoid being blocked due to excessive 'speedy' warnings. I just wanted to nip this behavior in the bud and get it on the record in case of recurrence by the same individual. RJASE1 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that Jim Lethbridge has been deleted, UKJ17 has *no* contributions, so I suggest this case be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

No activity from UKJ17, so no reason to take action. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Pejman47

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pejman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The page Azerbaijan is unblocked and Azerbaijani came back with 3 of himself rv'ing to the same rev.: Pejman47 and Mardavich. This Azerbaijani is unable to stop his POV and come to consensus on Talk:Azerbaijan page, so that we can move onto unblocking it. Now he has two suspected sockpups, RVing for him. Atabek 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments made at Talk:Azerbaijan

1) Both of you need to read WP:NPA and stop calling other users' edits vandalism.Azerbaijani 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Both of you need to read Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on contributors; and don't label other editors' contributions as vandalism. --Mardavich 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See any similarity?

Looks suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atabek (talk • contribs).

Comments

There is already a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pejman47. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser was declined. MER-C 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that Mardavich and Azerbaijani are socks of Pejman47. The evidence supplied by Atabek is weak, the checkuser was declined, and all three accounts are active and contribute to different articles from each other. In addition, there's a relevant arbitration case (WP:RFARB page on "Armenia-Azerbaijan"), where Atabek apparently alleges that Mardavich and Azerbaijani are socks, but doesn't mention Pejman47--it looks like Atabek has changed his mind about who the sockmaster is. I recommend closing this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing per above. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Demonesque

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Demonesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ivan Ryushimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

PocklingtonDan 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The suspected puppet account has made only one edit [238], which was vandalism, and which was reverted one minute later by the suspected puppet master, despite:

the edit containing nothing obvious in either text or edit summary to have alerted anyone watching for vandalism [239] and
the suspected puppet master not having edited that article before [240]

In addition:

~~the puppet account's name is "Ryan Ryushimi" and the suspected puppet master's name is listed on his user page as "Ryan" [241]~~ - incorrect, my mistake - PocklingtonDan 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe this bears investigation as a possible puppet account set up just to intoduce vandalism whicht he puppet master can then revert. There is no hard evidence for this, but rather a string of coincidences, but this should be possible to be easily resolved by examining the IP address of both sockpuppet and puppetmaster. If there is no connection between the two, then I apologise to the accused puppetmaster but hope he understand that this investigation was launched in good faith - PocklingtonDan 07:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks suspicious. However, the point about the names is wrong - the puppet's name is Ivan Ryushimi, not Ryan Ryushimi. Eli Falk 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Oh, wonderful. Good, I won't revert vandalism any more. --Demonesque 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to find out whether this user was puppeting or not for a conclusion to be reached. As the 3RR rule does not apply to self reversion, this would not configure illegitimate use. The vandalised page was reverted only one minute later, whether it was a puppet or not is irrelevant because the user acted quickly to fix it. --200.103.135.215 06:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty unlikely that Ivan Ryushimi is Demonesque's sock, and in any event there's no policy violation here, as 200.103.135.215 points out. I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

This isn't an instance of sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Alejandrozamora

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alejandrozamora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bbgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zhakira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.

Comments

I think this is a bit harsh. User freely states that he originally edited using Alejandrozamora but has changed to Zamorafan to avoid claiming to be Zamora himself. I can't speak for User:Bbgirl. MKoltnow 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added user Zhakira, because the account was created after the AFD started, and the account has similar editing style to the others (when posting a comment, the comment goes through a few revisions, and the signature always goes on a new line). --adavidw 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I also added Vmusic, whose only edit on Wikipedia has been a comment in the deletion discussion.
These are all SPAs and clearly socks. None have edited since the AfD closed on Jan. 31. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

These accounts are pretty clearly the same person, but since they've been inactive since the AfD closed there's no pressing need for action. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SColbertFan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SColbertFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

69.203.93.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

169.232.88.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: lwalt 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I'm beginning to suspect that 69.203.93.7, SColbertFan and 169.232.88.112 are the same person, since these three keeping adding the same unsourced quotation or references to the same height/weight info in the James Brown article. Their only contribution to Wikipedia is the height/weight info for this article. lwalt 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

No activity on any of these accounts since Jan 22. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closing, since the accounts are inactive. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bowser, King of the Koopas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

DXRAW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bowsy

Evidence

DXRAW's name was mentioned by Bowser as an account he is using that isn't blocked
Both have received warnings about persistent vandalism.
Both vandalise articles related to wrestling.

Comments

Though I don't believe that DXRAW is a sock of BKOTK, I would like to see this checkuser performed to get everyone off of his back if nothing else. Until one is performed he will have people conspiring against him and trying to trap him and make him slip up. Save them time and him stress and do the checkuser. -- The Hyb rid 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have a CheckUser performed, then request a CheckUser at the appropriate page. Shadow1 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

If the user who filed the report thinks this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, no action is needed. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Siege898

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Siege898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Twelfthfloor777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Making virtually identical vandalism to Lake Mary Preparatory School. The suspected puppet account appeared when warnings began to rack up on the suspected puppetmaster. - RJASE1 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This edit from Twelfthfloor777 and this edit from Siege898 are virtually identical; it's likely that they're the same person.

Both accounts are vandalism-only. Neither has been active since Jan. 31, but should probably be blocked anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Due to the duration of inactivity I've decided against blocking. Report to my user page if problems resume. Some problems resolve themselves through benign neglect. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Quade999

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Quade999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nintendude2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Solid Snake999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All three accounts are used for vandalism, of a suspiciously similar nature and at close times, and the usernames are similar too.

Evidence about User:Nintendude2000: Helped User:Quade999 to vandalize Dave just three minutes later, with similar theme in the vandalism (see history) and the vandalism edit made by User:Nintendude2000 mentioned Super Smash Bros., which was then vandalized by User:Quade999. Also edited Hand rankings within three minutes of User:Quade999, edited Spider-Man and Venom: Maximum Carnage two minutes after User:Quade999 (but in these two instances cleaned up the vandalism done by User:Quade999). Also, creates speedy delete articles in similar style to User:Quade999.

Evidence about User:Solid Snake999: Vandalized both Roar and Dave, two articles that had previously been vandalized by User:Quade999 just a few hours earlier. Also creates speedy deleted material (see Chop the Pot delete log) in same style and subject area as User:Quade999 (see Uhh Pokes delete log).

I also believe that User:Solid Snake999 was created in response to a "last warning" template left on Quade999's talk page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: the vandalism is ongoing (see this edit history comparison as it happened again today. User:Nintendude2000 seems to have become a dormant account lately, with User:Solid Snake999 becoming dominant. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

These accounts are clearly the same person--they commit similar vandalism on the same handful of articles. All three are vandal-only accounts. They haven't been active since Feb 1, but should probably be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

If problems resume, follow up at my user talk. I generally issue blocks when activity is fresher than this. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Alejandrozamora

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alejandrozamora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Zamorafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mhking 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora imply that Alejandrozamora has at least two sockpuppet accounts that are attempting to comment and influence the decision.

Comments

Zamorafan mentions in the AFD that he switched from Alejandrozamora to Zamorafan to avoid people thinking that he is Alejandro Zamora. There's no case here on this specific name (although the user had a couple of other sockpuppets show up). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora. --adavidw 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevant diff is [242]. Neither account has edited since the AfD closed on Jan 31; their edits center entirely around promoting the musician. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'd have blocked if this came to my attention while the report was new. As it is, follow up at my user page if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Animesouth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Animesouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Miss Away (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.105.60.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
143.88.201.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DashiKun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.1.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.1.76.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Muhammad Ali
- user:68.63.22.57 introduces body of text that introduces libel onto a living-person biography, violating WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV [243].
- user:143.88.201.123 introduces the same body of text - [244] [245].
- Uucp introduces the same body of text four times - [246] [247] [248] [249].
- Animesouth Ditto, three times. - [250] [251] [252].
- user:68.1.77.61 also does the same - [253].
List of anime conventions
- user:Dashikun cleans out significant texts - [254] [255]
- user:Miss Away cleans out the text as well - [256] [257] [258]
- Previous to that is user:Animesouth who does the same thing - [259] [260] [261]
Anime South - The following all commit the same edits. More may be there -but I gotta scoot to class!
- user:Animesouth - [262] [263] [264]
- user:68.105.60.48 - [265]
- user:68.1.76.55 - [266] [267]
  - The user also editwarred by removing an unreferenced tag - [268] [269]

Comments

I have added User:DashiKun to the list: [270]
In the short term, List of anime conventions should be sprotected so that future sockpuppet accounts are prevented from vandalising the page. Thanks Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I requested temporary full protection at RFPP-it looks like several of these are "sleepers", DashiKun, for example, would be able to edit an sprotected page as the account was created on the 5th this month. Seraphimblade 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Accuse me of sock puppetry all you want, because it's untrue. Just because people agree with me does not mean they're sock puppets! I actually read up on sock puppets and how you could use proxies, but it seems quite dishonest. I'm an Eagle Scout. We're sworn not to lie. - Animesouth 06:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is the best excuse I've heard so far. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- We accuse you of sock puppetry because you cannot honestly say to us with a straight face that you have people who will come to aid you when you have edits conflicts with others. Don't try and attempt to fool us. If you're Anime South staff, it does not look good for your convention. As it is, I have made this aware to other conventions elsewhere via the ACML. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you honestly saying that your "friend who came to support you" made this account on the 5th ([271]), but didn't edit until today ([272]), just to come to your aid today? Regardless, you should be discussing your desired changes, not edit warring or enlisting people to come do so on your behalf. Seraphimblade 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Of course I do. All 3 of you have done the exact same thing. You have written on the talk pages of each other to gang up against me. It's there in black and white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animesouth (talk • contribs)
    - This one is even better. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    - The difference, of course, is that we're long-standing users who are actually separate people. There's no way we could have done each other's work. I've been a Wikipedian for almost three years myself. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    - ...but that's just it, you're not discussing the changes. For example, you have tried multiple times to remove the "anime-stub" from the Anime South article. In my revert note, I put "There is not much info here. Guests? Programming? Give us some DETAILS!" Yet you keep reverting the change over and over and over even though multiple users have put it back. Now, don't you think that just maybe we could be right and it could be a stub? Afterall, it is fairly short. If more details (with reference citations) were added, I think everyone would agree the stub marker could go away. ...but no, you would rather do an edit war. Seriously man, WTF?! --PatrickD 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is highly unlikely that more than one user would draw the same libelous conclusion using the same commentary and selective quoting from an SI article. It is clearly an attack on Ali's character, and what I've found in cases like this, there is never an actual group of users pushing something like this, but rather one with a grudge. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Particularly in regards to the Anime South article edits, even if these are not all the same people, these IP's resolve to Florida making it extremely likely that this is at the very least a co-ordinated effort to post up a specific version of this article by 1 or more people. Even if it isn't Socking, it is disruptive.--Isotope23 19:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Not only do they resolve to Florida, a simple nslookup reveals that they all resolve to the same region of the same ISP (Cox) in Florida.--PatrickD 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:Miss Away and User:DashiKun have been blocked as sockpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All named accounts have been blocked and the IPs are either inactive or making good-faith contributions, so closing.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Damir Mišić

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Damir Mišić (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

—KingIvan 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

If I'm right about this (which I'm certain that I am), then a whole lot of edit warring could be stopped. Before reading this, please take a look at these ([273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280]) to get a bit of background on why this case is important.

Over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, they are unsure of who the "master account" is. But I am 100% certain that I know who it is. The following users have been confirmed as sockpuppets, or are strongly suspected to be sockpuppets.

Bosniak (talk · contribs)
Bosniakk (talk · contribs)
Legal Provider of Bosnian picture (talk · contribs)
Provider of Bosnian pictures (talk · contribs)
BosnianPatriots (talk · contribs)
Bosna (talk · contribs)
Bosna 101 (talk · contribs)
Bosniaqq (talk · contribs)

These three are not listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bosna, but by lookign at contributions, writing style etc, it is easy to see they are the same as above. Also just by checking the page history of these three user pages, it can be seen that they are the same user, since each user page was exactly the same at a certain point in time.

Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs)
Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs)
Bosoni (talk · contribs)

Hahahihihoho (talk · contribs) is a notorious POV warrior, and troll. He has been banned from editing Wikipedia, however he has created countless sockpuppets, so it is impossible to list them all here. After reading though many Wikipedia pages (including Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hahahihihoho), the following are either proven socks of his, or near certain to be socks of his:

Damir Mišić (talk · contribs) is even more notorious than Hahahihihoho. They share many common edit patterns; so much so that it is certain that they are the same user. Since both of these users are extremely infamous on Wikipedia, it is definite that either Hahahihihoho, or Damir Mišić is the "master account". To determine who is "in charge", you must look at both user's logs (Damir Mišić's, Hahahihihoho's) and contributions. It can be seen that Damir's account is older than Hahahihihoho's - also if you check the user creation log of all the listed users, you will see that Damir Mišić is older than any of them. On June 15, Damir "left" Wikipedia, and Hahahihihoho was created. Therefore, Damir Mišić definitely is the "master" of all these abusive, policy violating sockpuppets.

Comments

What is the strong suspicion / proof for User:Bosniak? As I said at WP:AN/I#User:Bosniak again?, the edits of this user seem to be rather different. Besides, the account was created before User:Damir Mišić. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some Checkuser cases and AN/I posts related to this:

Since these accusations have been thoroughly reviewed in other places and the consensus seems to be that the listed accounts aren't all sockpuppets, I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

In light of the Checkuser and ANI posts listed above, I'm closing this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Alisarmadkhan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alisarmadkhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

[[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{2}}}|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/{{{2}}}|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/move/{{{2}}}|page moves]] · [[Special:Block/{{{2}}}|block user]] · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence: User:Alisarmadkhan appears to be an account created for the sole purpose of commenting on an ArbComm case.[281]
JFD 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

This isn't enough information for a case. At the very least we need a suspected master and a suspected puppet. Alisarmadkhan looks suspicious, but since this case is malformed and the Arbcom case has closed, I'm closing the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:EJBanks

Suspected sockpuppeteer

EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LedgerJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:LedgerJoker is creating redundant categories and articles, some of which are awkwardly named and/or inappropriately capitalized for Wikipedia style. Despite the new user name, this user has quickly gone to work creating articles and categories. These behaviors are consistent with the behavior of User:EJBanks, who was permanently banned as a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler and had also been believed by many to be a sockpuppet of a user called Batman fan. Additional signs that LedgerJoker and EJBanks are the same people then lie in their common interests: 1. Hastily populated soap opera categories. 2. Special attention to Days of our Lives. 3. Comic book characters (in this case, Joker in his name). 4. Spider-Man movies. 5. Reality show contestants. 6. Various celebrities. 7. Date-based categories/lists (recently Category:Television in the 2000's).

Wryspy 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I havent done much with socks but it looks 95% like a sock Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:LedgerJoker is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Blake911

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Blake911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mikemiddleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Waargboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.197.239.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.167.111.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.105.70.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Some time ago, Blake911 created an account and then proceeded to make an article about himself, Blake Van Leer. It was deleted after a successful AFD nomination. He also started working on articles for other members of his family (some notable, others not), as well as arguing for the deletion of an article, Shadowclan. Mikemiddleton's account came into existence on January 10 and immediately started making same sort of edits as Blake911, including a botched AFD nomination attempt for the Shadowclan article, edits to surviving articles on members of the Van Leer family, and even recreating the Blake Van Leer article. Finally—this is somewhat subjective—but Blake911 and Mikemiddleton also appear to have the same usage of English grammar, such as an absolute aversion to commas other than to create comma splices (compare talk page contribs). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Waargboom appears to be another one for the same reasons as Mikemiddleton. This one is harrassing me, too, so any help would be appreciated. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Update 2: I added a small collection of IPs that have the same, limited editing activities as all the rest. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

All these suspected sockpuppet accounts have be replacing the same link to the deleted Blake Van Leer article at the Van Leer disambiguation page [282]. After he ignored several warnings, I blocked Mikemiddleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24hrs for disruptive editing, and then Waargboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 68.167.111.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the same period as obvious sockpuppets being used to circumvent a block. I am satisfied, from this editing pattern, that all these suspected accounts are operated by the same user. Rockpocket 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Since an admin took action on this complaint and there's been no further objectionable behavior, I'm going to go ahead and close the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Tamilguy07

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tamilguy07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tamilguy07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
jhnnyrj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dravidian Warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wiki Raja 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I am being falsely accused here of being the following users above here, here, and here and for sockpuppetry.

Comments

Also, I have went to the checkuser page and have found as stated on their page not to request a checkuser on myself to prove my innosence. Can you help me out?

Conclusions

All named accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wiki Raja. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Worthadonkey

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Worthadonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Worthamule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Butseriouslyfolks 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Aside from the similarity of names, Worthadonkey made a number of edits to a deleted version of Christina McHale and then, after it was deleted at AfD, repeatedly recreated it and Christina mchale. SeeUser_talk:Worthadonkey. Worthadonkey was banned for 1 month on March 7th for this and also for abusing the unblock template.

Worthamule was created on March 14th and has only edited Christina McHale and Christina mchale, recreating both articles.

Comments

It seems obvious that Worthamule is a sock used for block evasion. You might want to post this to WP:ANI, as this board doesn't get much admin attention (I'm not an admin), and the case will likely sit here awhile before getting a response. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

User:Worthamule also recreated the article at Christina Marietta McHale. User:Worthamule has been indefinitely blocked. The timer on User:Worthadonkey has been reset. -- JLaTondre 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:RCSIRCSIRCSI

Suspected sockpuppeteer

RCSIRCSIRCSI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bme diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.1.229.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cquan 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ongoing edit dispute on Biomedical engineering. User:RCSIRCSIRCSI wishes to include rankings, and actually only one ranking about his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, on the article under the education section. I reverted the edit [283], and back and forth reverts continued [284] despite a discussion present on the talk page, [285] where two editors besides myself agreed that the content shouldn't be included for multiple reasons[286]. Reverts and entries on the talk page by User:RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped and were replaced by a revert by anon IP 193.1.229.15, which frequently edits RCSIRCSIRCSI's talk page and seems to follow similar editing patterns, see [287] and [288], compare to [289]. Also, a new account was created after RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped reverting, [290], the User:Bme diddy only editing in regards to this dispute [291]. In total, this is far beyond 3RR.

Addendum: Now, the user has raised a sockpuppet case against me, [292] with a bad copy/paste job of the evidence I have presented. Also, User:RCSIRCSIRCSI placed the sockpuppet warning on my talk page, [293], but User:Bme diddy added the warning to the my "accused sockpuppet", User:Grey Knight 1ce, here [294].
Comments

RCSIRCSIRCSI has repeatedly dismissed the opinions of other editors and in this case there is some level of consensus against. The user has also been less than civil on at least one occasion [295]. This dispute is ongoing and I would like to have more editors contribute to the discussion before this content is allowed to remain on the article.

Conclusions

RCSIRCSIRCSI blocked 48h, sock blocked indef. – Steel 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dereks1x

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

HumanThing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DelloJello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TL500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

· j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Talk:John Edwards#Mrs. Edwards's cancer (and related comments)
[296], [297], [298], [299] etc, see history
Talk:Barack Obama#Law firm
[300], [301], [302], etc, see history
Three of them appear to have taken an interest in Lake City, Seattle, Washington
[303], [304], [305], etc, see history
Two have edited Calvert DeForest and its talk page (though there was no content dispute).

Comments

I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain, that Dereks1x is using sockpuppets to attempt to gain advantages in content disputes. The alleged socks have advanced positions remarkably similar to Dereks1x's on relevant talk pages while most other editors that have participated in the relevant discussions have reached opposite conclusions. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________

New evidence (presented by accused)

See chart near the end (on top of conclusion).

RE: Edwards: Three of four users involvement were very, very minimal and three of them never wrote anything on the actual article, which is what readers look at.

RE: Obama: But one of them never had ANY contact at all with Obama and two of them have very minor contact with the topic but only on the talk page, not on the actual article. Only one of them voted once for one of the dozen topics, the other three NEVER voted. For the remainder of the voting, none of the users ever voted.

RE: Calvert DeForest was on all the network news and on the internet because he just died. Millions of people knew the guy.

The accused, Derek, has NEVER said that TL500, HumanThing, or DelloJello are in support of his views, claiming they "share opinions". In fact, they pretty much stay away from each other. There has been very, very minor crossing of paths of the accused in the case of Obama or Edwards (not both), both very public figures.

DelloJello just writes about Illinois topics and doesn't seem to be very political. Only once wrote on Obama and that was just the discussion page, NOT the acutal article. Nobody else among the accused EVER writes anything about Illinois.

HumanThing writes about Florida topics and Sarah Palin. Only had 2 minor John Edwards entries. Nobody else among the accused EVER writes about Florida.

This TL500 person is pretty much an airline person and stays far, far away from politics. TL500 isn't involved in any argument with ANYONE. TL500 seems to only write about airlines and very obscure aircraft. In fact, I never even heard of the VFW614! TL500's airline article are also NEVER written by any of the other accused. If there's anyone to feel sorry about, I feel sorry for TL500 because TL500 is just minding their own business and writing about aircraft that I never even heard of.

Comments from the accused, Dereks1x

According to the complainer's comments, he is trying to crush all discussion by accusing anyone that respectfully disagrees as being wikipedia criminals. See what jersyko says above..."alleged socks (or anyone who jersyko doesn't like) ...have reached opposite conclusions (as the people that jersyko agrees with)"

That accusation is not relevant because all editing has been done by consensus and compromise (there has been NO to "gain advantages in content disputes". For example, the part about Senator Obama's legal career 15 years ago was edited many times but has stabilized. So has the discussion about Mrs. Edwards' new cancer metastasis. So there is no evidence of disruption, just good old fashioned discussion and revisions. Wikipedia editing has been done by consensus (in the articles named, NO voting has EVER been done by the accused, Dereks1x). The accused has even publically accepted compromise language and has stated that while not in complete agreement, believes the compromise language is ok. Furthermore, the accused follows a policy of presenting slight revisions as compromise language and never, or at least recently, never just blanket deletes stuff as others have done to Derek's contributions.

Jersyko and Bobbelhead and Tvoz are also talkers about this. Even Ecostaz talked about cancer. They are equally suspicious if we are accusing others of being sockpuppets. The main dispute seems to be that Jersyko doesn't like Dereks1x discussion about Edwards and Obama even though everything is logical, civil, and not disruptive. Bobbelhead has written in the talk page of Lake City so why can't Bobblehead be a puppet?

After some private discussion, I know now who TL500 is. However, the wikipedia privacy policy and personal ethics forbid me to name the name of that person. It is not me, however.

However, the main accused, the Osama bin Laden of the terrorist cell is supposed to be Dereks1x. And they are wrong. Derek is no Osama. Derek is unique in writing about some very, very obscure topics and articles such as Glaxo, Surrender Document, United States, Carrasco, Parke-Davis, Dunlop Tyres, Sidley Austin, Kathryn Kuhlmann, Oral Roberts, Oral Roberts University, Commonwealth of Nations, Paula Jones, etc. NONE of the other people accused EVER write about ANY of this stuff.

Topic-wise, TL500 is an airliner person. HumanThing writes about Florida. DelloJello writes about Illinois and only writes about Mrs. Obama because she's from Illinois. Dereks1x writes about very unusual mix of topics all different from the other accused. The only thing that's not an unusual topic is that Derek writes about presidential candidate Edwards' wife's cancer and put more specifics about Obama's early law career 15 years ago. If he is persecuted for that, he is being persecuted for free speech, for saying very logical and non-radical things.

In summary,

1. This is aggression by Jersyko because nothing bad has been done. Jersyko is just accusing people who disagrees with him (he says that all who I disagree are sockpuppets and those who agree with me are not sockpuppets...look at his accusation, under "comments"
Jersyko, Bobblehead, Tvoz have made some nasty comments about me regarding the John Edwards article. Maybe that's why Jersyko and her friends are mad? Are they the same person???? That's very suspicious, the link between Jersyko, Tvoz, and to some extent, Bobblehead.
2. As further evidence of aggression by Jersyko, he keeps erasing evidence that I present in my defense. He's a lawyer and should know better. Suprresion of evidence and destroying evidence by Jersyko, alone, is sufficient evidence that this complaint should be dismissed.
3. Jersyko should be banned as an administrator for making a very serious false accusation, which takes a long time to defend.
4. People look at each others' contributions and then think "oh, I have an idea about that subject"
5. Bobblehead also wrote along with Derek in the talk page of an obscure article, Lake City Seattle Washington. Why isn't Bobblehead being accused of being a sockpuppet?
6. I NEVER vote in wikipedia polls regarding whether a political issue is or is not notable. So it's impossible that I'm attempting to gain influence in spinning an article.
7. I've done nothing disruptive. All contributions have been sensible, not radical or communist. I have never committed any type of vandalism.
8. I don't have control over others at work who may or may not be contributing.
9. I contribute to some very obscure wikipedia articles that NOBODY else does. Such as Falklands Surrender Document, Glaxo, Kathryn Kulmann, Dunlop tires.
10. Although I have no control over DelloJello and HumanThing and TL500, I see that they all write about completely different stuff from me. They seem polite, non-disruptive, and good people
11. VERY IMPORTANT: The main dispute by the complainer is that he doesn't like Derek's quite logical and very politely written comments about being accurate as far as Mrs. Edwards' cancer and to accurately describe Obama's previous law career of 15 years ago. That's all. All very above board and legal.
12. Even a supporter of Jersyko supports me when they write on Jersyko's talk page "It would only untoward if Jersyko blocked you for disruption.--Bobblehead 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)". In otherwords, it is inappropriate for me to be blocked as I have not been disruptive or sockpuppeting.
13. (Now for the technicalities: Wikipedia says: Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption-----I am being accused some something which is only discouraged, not illegal. I have never voted in a poll, much less voted more than once. I can only see where one of the accused voted one time, the other never voted. No policy has been circumvented. No disruption has occurred. All of my posts, particularly the recent ones that I remember very well, have been all logical, non-disruptive, and polite. The entries of the other accused that I have seen are also logical and polite among the ones that I searched. Based on this, the accusation should be dropped)Dereks1x 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________

Comment by Bobblehead

I can't comment on DelloJello or TL500 as I haven't done any looking into their edit history, but until today, HumanThing had only made a handful of edits outside of pages that Dereks1x had edited on and today's edits were undertaken shortly after Dereks1x noticed I had left a comment on Tvoz's talk page regarding my suspicions of Derekx1x and HumanThing being sock/meatpuppets and the edits were made in an unusual hour long break in Dereks1x's editing. A break that long in Dereks1x's edit history is generally only associated with a long edit and the talk page edit was not a long edit.

06:53, 25 March 2007 My comment.
10:48, 25 March 2007 Dereks1x noticing my comment.
11:15, 25 March 2007 Last edit by Dereks1x for an hour
11:28, 25 March 2007 HumanThing's first edit of the day.
11:44, 25 March 2007 HumanThing's last edit of the day (so far).
12:24, 25 March 2007 Dereks1x first edit an hour later.

Additionally, except for a comment on Talk:Sarah Palin and an anon's talk page, when HumanThing makes an appearance on a talk page, it is invariably in support of a position Dereks1x has taken.

HumanThing's comment on Talk:Lake City, Seattle, Washington.
1st comment on Talk:Barack Obama.
HumanThing's comment on Talk:John Edwards.

Given the small number of edits by HumanThing it is unlikely that they'd coincidentally hit the same articles as Dereks1x and that they'd share the same positions, particularly an article about an obscure neighborhood in Seattle, Washington. --Bobblehead 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________

Refuting Bobblehead

Bobblehead, Tvoz, and Jersyko are the group opposed to me because they don't like the logical and NPOV statements I have written about 2 narrow topics, i.e. Obama's legal career before being Senator and Mrs. John Edwards' cancer. That's why Bobblehead has ganged up on me. Wikipedia did not contact him. He has sought out ways to attack me.
Bobblehead has NEVER written anything about the obscure Seattle neighborhood of Lake City until March 23 and 24 (on the talk page). This is after I wrote something. Yet he accuses me of sockpuppeting with someone else who wrote about Lake City but not himself. Based on the bad logic he gives, he should be convicted of sockpuppeting because he has written about an obscure Seattle neighborhood just like I haveDereks1x 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead has claimed residency in Seattle, Washington on his/her userpage since at least May 2006. Bobblehead's interest in such an article is obvious based on this fact. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to whether HumanThing et al are your sockpuppets, however. I foresee this going to checkuser at this rate. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko has rested his case. He is a lawyer. It is highly inappropriate for him to bring up new charges or keep presenting material.

The fact remains that merely visiting the same page is not sockpuppeting. Bobblehead never wrote anything on Lake City EVER until after I did. He is not accused of sockpuppeting. Yet some other person wrote a minimal comment and they are accused of being my sockpuppet. They could have followed me. In any case, I have not been disruptive. I cannot control them, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are disruptive either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs)

The fact remains...the other accused write about completely different things than me and vice versa. There is only a little overlap on two high profile articles (Obama and Edwards). The others' comments on those two are very minimal and not disruptive. I should not be attacked for my very NPOV contributions which my accusers don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs)

Comment by Tvoz

I independently formed suspicions over the last few days that these usernames were sockpuppets (or possibly meatpuppets) of User:Dereks1x, for similar reasons as Jersyko and Bobblehead, primarily because of tone and content of their edits on Barack Obama and John Edwards and their associated talk pages. It appears that these usernames are introduced into discussion to support Dereks1x's positions, using similar phrasing as Dereks1x's. Looking into it more to assist in this SSP review, I found other troubling coincidences to support this suspicion.

User: 71.212.111.238: I would like to include in this discussion the IP address 71.212.111.238 which I believe to be the IP of Dereks1x, used in editing Barack Obama (and other articles not relevant to this discussion) before Obama was semi=protected on March 17. I base this on the similarity of both usernames' edits and edit summaries to Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama regarding Punahou School. (See for instance this one and the edit summary of this one).

There's nothing wrong with going from an IP address to a username, of course - I raise this because if IP address 71.212.111.238 is Dereks1x, then the overlap between 71.212.111.238 and TL500 and Dereks1x described below becomes significant in determining if these names are sockpuppets.

User:TL500: One of the articles that Dereks1x did not mention, which he created and did a fair amount of work on, is a piece on the relatively obscure Frank F. Ledford, Jr. which has had a total of 29 edits by 8 editors, including Dereks1x (16 edits) and 3 editors (one of which is a Bot) who did 3 pure maintenance edits. Of the 10 remaining edits. 3 were done by TL500 and 1 was done by 71.212.111.238. edit history:

Dereks1x mentions that TL500 is an "airline person". Among the pages TL500 has edited extensively are Southwest Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines. User 71.212.111.238 also has extensively edited the same Southwest Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines. Each of these users edited an article about a Boeing plane as well - one Boeing 717, the other Boeing 777.

71.212.111.238 contributions
TL500 contributions

This coinciding edit history suggests to me that these accounts may all be the same person. TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages, but came in with this which was a defense of Dereks1x's edit position, and 2 other small comments on talk.

User: HumanThing: User:HumanThing's earliest edit was at 23:01 on March 21 contributions. Five edits later (3 Calvert De Forest, 1 Lake City Seattle, 1 Ft Lauderdale), HumanThing came in to Talk:Barack Obama, having never edited the article or commented on its Talk page, with a comment that supported Dereks1x's edits using phrasing ("blanket statement that he was a civil rights lawyer" which is actually not accurate and therefore more suspicious that both are using it) and tone that is very similar to Dereks1x's own.

HumanThing diff
an example of Dereks1x's similar language -1st entry in section.

HumanThing's very next edit was to edit Bobblehead's talk page comment by inserting his own words (purporting to explain an edit Dereks1x had made) inside of Bobblehead's comment without any edit summary or explanation. This edit was never reverted, and I think that may be because so much was going on at the same time that no one may have noticed it - I didn't look into how it got there until this evening. I don't know if Bobblehead noticed it, as I think he might have removed it if he had. Editing other people's talk page commetns of course is not allowed, and doing so to justify Dereks1x's edit certainly raises suspicions that HumanThing and Dereks1x are one and the same. Please also note HumanThing's wording - talking about putting in a change to "make you happy" - very similar phrasing that Dereks1x has used in several edits, including the 2nd entry in this section of my talk page. I think there were other edits by Dereks1x that used similar wording, and I can look for the diffs if need be. I had not had any contact with HumanThing prior to this edit, but I had already had several difficult interactions with Dereks1x, and HumanThing's sniping comment here, targeted at me, made me think that he might be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x.

HumanThing's next edit is to John Edwards, an article that Dereks1x regularly edits, and then HumanThing's very next edit - his 9th edit since assuming this name two days prior - was a completely erroneous, baseless and false accusation against me of 3RR which was immediately rejected because the edits in question were not even reverts, let alone 3RR violations. This was just a personal attack, and he didn't even notify me that the report had been made - I didn't know about it until another editor informed me this morning. This is the report and current disposition. (I have not yet responded, as it's not clear to me if I am supposed to, since the admin already said "no violation".) This false and absurd accusation, from someone who had almost nothing to do with the editing of the article in question, nor interaction with me, raises the suspicion in my mind that HUmanThing is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x who was actively editing and with whom I had some prior interactions.

Since then, the only relevant edit by HumanThing was his jumping in to defend Dereks1x's edits on Talk:John Edwards early this morning here. Bobblehead has gone over the timing of HumanThing's comments vis-a-vis Dereks1x's.

User:DelloJello: User:DelloJello's only activity on Wikipedia was 10 edits yesterday (March 24). Here is the timeline that raises my suspicions:

Dereks1x was actively editing yesterday, from 14:23 to 17:39 - the last edit in this series was this, about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and comparing the situation to FDR.

DelloJello made 10 consecutive edits from 18:11 to 19:09 (these are the only edits DelloJello has made) - his first edit at 18:11, following Derkes1x's last one, was this about Mrs. Edwards' cancer, comparing it to JFK.

Dereks1x resumed editing at 19:21, continuing to until 1:48 this morning. Several of these edits were about Mrs. Edwards' cancer.

This is not hard proof, but the language and tone, and the break in Dereks1x's editing that coincides with DelloJello's edit burst, raise a suspicion in my mind that this is a sockpuppet situation.

Summary from Tvoz

Like Jersyko and Bobblehead, I have suspicions, and evidence - but not hard proof - of sockpuppetry. The editing of several articles has been affected by this and by Dereks1x's tendentious approach and seeming lack of understanding of many basics, as well as sometimes disruptive editing and what comes across to me as POV pushing. Tvoz | talk 08:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Refuting Tvoz assertions

Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko appear to be the only users who opposed objective mention of Senator Edwards' wife's cancer and an accurate description of Senator Obama's early legal career. There is NO other significant content dispute. The original complainer, Jersyko, said (see complaint) that only sockpockets are against a position and other people are for. However, it's only that bunch of 3 who support each others' position.
A true assessment of entries show that the 3 complainers are politically motivated to stamp out any civil discussion. 3 of the accused have almost no involvement in the 2 political articles. Only one of them has contributed to the political articles. When he's done so, it's been logical and civil. He is not disruptive.
The other accused sockpuppets have either very minimal (1 or 2) or absolutely no contact with the Obama and Edwards (high profile presidential candidates) page and, in many instances, the contact was only to discuss proposals on the talk page but did not involve the actual article. These brief discussions did not involve voting, except one did vote one time for only one of more than a dozen polls there.
Evidence of collusion between the complainers (Tvoz, Bobblehead, Jersyko) is shown when all three write accusations on this complaint page. Wikipedia does not notify Tvoz or Bobblehead, yet they come to this obscure page to complain. This is evidence of a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to harrass me.
I suspect that the complainer and Bobblehead and Tvoz are in cahoots because all three have made comments here. On the other hand, I now know who TL500 is and TL500 tells me that he hasn't been notified of this complaint (so Tvoz and Bobblehead likely haven't, proving collusion)
As a result, this complaint should be dismissed.Dereks1x 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relayed message from TL500

I told TL500 of the troublemakers complaint and TL500 says this is like a nuisance lawsuit (without merit) against TL500. TL500 said to look over the accusations against the user...I have...Bobblehead doesn't make any negative comment. Tvoz says "TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages" and makes no complaint about the Edwards page (because I think TL500 has had no contact with that page and maybe only 1 contact with the Obama talk page, but not the article). The original complainer doesn't really mention TL500 except to list the user name and to mention that TL500 has made a lot of contributions to other subject.
Therefore, TL500 should be dropped from the complaint.

I have not had any discussions with the people that I suspect are JelloDello or HumanThing. Let them defend themselves. If you haven't notified them of the complaint, then they should be dropped (because the accused should have the right to defend them). I am not their representative or legal counsel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs).

This is Wikipedia. This isn't a lawsuit. Please stop treating it like one. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New development by Wikipedia adminstration: Jersyko has harrassed me more than once, trying to use wikipedia to harm me. A checkuser attempt from Jersyko on me has been rejected by clearer heads at wikipedia as shown below:

Checkuser on Dereks1x by Jersyko: Rejected --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs).

And here's why it was rejected (hardly a proclamation of innocence). This SSP continues and I still suspect that you have used socks improperly. · j e r s y k o talk ·

Jersyko has contacted wikipedia, in effect, appealing the denial (see Jersyko's entry immediately above this sentence). The wikipedia decision to deny RFCU was affirmed, in other words, Rejected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs).

Summary of data that they are complaining about (in chart form)

I counted the number:
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: John Edwards------Number of revisions: Senator Obama
..........TL500............................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........Dello Jello......................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........HumanThing....................2 (not that significant revisions)........0 (Zero)
Comment: This is hardly a smoking gun or a sign of sockpuppeting!

I also counted the number of talk page comments, which are not part of the articles.
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: Talk/John Edwards--Number of revisions: Talk/B.Obama
..........TL500........................... 0 (Zero)......................................2 (just short/polite comments)
..........Dello Jello..................... 1 (One).......................................0 (Zero)
..........Human Thing.................. 2 (Two).......................................2 (Two)
Comment: This is a very small number and not a sign of sockpuppeting, these contributions are only on the talk page and did NOT appear in the main article.

Number of votes (notable or not notable kind of voting)
User name (accused)---number votes in the 13 polls in the Talk:Senator Obama page
Dereks1x....................... 0 (ZERO) of 13 possible areas to vote
TL500.......................... 1 of 13
Dello Jello.................... 0 (ZERO)
Human Thing................. 0 (ZERO)
Comment: So only 1 vote cast even though these 4 users could have casts up to a total of 52 votes.Dereks1x 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment in Support by an uninterested (uninvolved) party

I happen to currently have a suck puppetry case pending against me right now. I know how much it stinks when you work hard to make Wikipedia more neutral, and people who would rather it agreed with their views accuse you of some sort of criminal behavior. This evidence in this case is laughable. It's just wrong to accuse someone of suck puppetry just because they disagree with you. I m dude2002 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Assume good faith instead of assuming political motivations. (2) This user commented on Dereks1x's SSP because Dereks1x commented on I m dude2002's SSP then indicated that he would like I m dude2002 to comment on his SSP. I would warn or block you both for disruption if I weren't an involved admin. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another sock

Based on User:SLCUT841's first three edits (SLCUT841 (talk · contribs)), I think it's pretty obvious that this user is also a sock puppet of Dereks1x. I trust someone will be along shortly to examine the evidence presented here and take appropriate action. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Remarks by TL500

I have received no notification from wikipedia that I am a sockpuppet. Therefore, I should be dropped from the complaint and all charges against me dismissed.
I have not violated any wikipedia rule. I am not a sockpuppet. Sockpuppetry is not illegal, anyway.
Note wikipedia rules which state: "The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption."

I only voted once in a poll about real estate, none of the others accused voted at all. Nobody has accused me of multiple voting.

I have not circumvented any Wikipedia policy. Look at the complaint language. I have not been accused on circumventing any policy. No specific policy was identified that I violated.

I have not caused any disruption. Look at the complaint language. Nobody has accused me of disruption.

Based on these 3 points alone, I should be dropped from the complaint because I am innocent.

Looking at my contributions, you will see that I am very civil and have not gotten into conflicts. Any discussion that I am involved with is very civil.
Even the accusers do not make statements that I am bad or have been disruptive.
There is absolutely no instances that I have been disruptive in the articles mentioned. I never had any contact with the John Edwards article or talk page. I never had any contact with the Barack Obama article. I did have minor comments on the Obama talk page but only on one day, and that was more than a week ago. As far as collaborating with the other accused sockpuppets, my comment on the Obama talk page was simply about the real estate controversy which NONE of the other accused talked about. This certainly shows that there is not a conspiracy between me and the others.
Am I being punished because I voted in a poll about Obama's real estate? It looks like I am being attacked just for expressing an opinion, which wasn't very radical anyway
What every happened to "Freedom of Speech (voting), "Assume Good Faith" and "Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty"?
I am just interested in aviation stuff, that's all. I can't see why my little comment about Obama's real estate is causing me to be savagely attacked like this. I didn't know Wikipedia is so cruel. You are almost putting me to tears because of this. Bullies!TL500 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note re TL500 by Tvoz: (1) Contrary to what TL500 says, he was in fact notified of this action on his User page on March 26 as per procedure; (2) as described above, the suspicion of sockpuppetry is based on the evidence presented of significant overlap of edits on other articles; the edit that brought these suspicions to the fore was on Talk:Barack Obama where TL500 came onto the article pages out of the blue and joined one other suspected sock/meatpuppet of Dereks1x's as the only editors agreeing with Dereks1x's lone and insistent stance in the "law firm" section on a small matter that at least 5 editors disagreed with. The style, tone, and substance of TL500's remarks here only add to my suspicions. Tvoz | talk 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal by TL500 (re--Tvoz accusations)

I now see that the note was on the user page and not the discussion page.

The truth of the matter is unchanged. There was no disruption. My involvement with the Obama talk page was very minimal and not in conjunction with Derek. Never did I claim that he supports my position. I can't see anywhere where he says that he has my support.
If there is any disruptive behavior, it is between Jersyko and Tvoz who tag team to attack me, when I've been just civil and not involved whatsoever with the John Edwards pages and not involved whatsoever with the Obama pages and just very, very minimal contact with the Obama talk page. In contrast, Tvoz and Jersyko are extremely coordinating. They tag team on attacking (being aggressive and not assuming good faith) so much so that I suspect they are either sockpuppets or same/different sex couples.
Furthermore, the complainers are harrassing ME, not vice versa. They filed a checkuser request and it was rejected. Yet they continue to attack me (instead of withdrawing me from the complaint after the checkuser was denied).
I see that Jersyko is an administrator. Jersyko's behavior, being so aggressive and showing lack of assuming good faith, puts all wikipedia administrators in a bad name (particularly since one was already in the news for being a fraud).
Show me where I have vandalized, show me where I've voted in multiple polls, show me where I've engaged in edit warring in Obama or Edwards' article. NONE, ZERO, NEVER, ZIPPO, NADA.
In short, they have failed to show that MY behavior is disruptive. As a result of MY behavior not being disruptive, I should be dropped from this complaint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs).

Response by JelloDello

1. I freely admit that I am a sockpuppet but I am not a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. I am the sockpuppet to JelloDello and JelloDello2. This is because I forgot my password to JelloDello.
2. Look at how disruptive I have been. I'm accused of being a sockpuppet on Obama's and Edwards' articles. Yet I never did anything to those pages. How can I be disruptive if I didn't do anything, let alone vandalism. Ok, I made one itty bitty comment on a talk page. So what. Those accusers never showed how it's disruptive....case closed. For vandalism, it's obvious how that's disruptive. So is multiple voting. How is a tiny, itty, bitty comment and just one comment, not a whole series of comments disruptive. Those accusers have a real problem....themselves. I am so fed up with them that I think I don't want to contribute any more. You don't need to ban DelloJello because I forgot the password. DelloJello2 is defecting to a free country where people are not charged with fake crimes.DelloJello2 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note on responses

As each of the suspected puppets have chimed in, I'm more and more convinced that they are all socks of the same master. Similar writing styles, same focus on this being some type of "trial" for "crimes", same types of rebuttals, same anger at me and anyone else who has provided evidence. I now suspect this problem is perhaps much broader than I originally thought, and suspect that there are more socks that have not been listed on this page. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Refuting DelloJello: DelloJello admits being a sockpuppet but not a sockpuppet of me, Dereks1x. Therefore, there is no dispute by the accused (DelloJello), the accuser (Jersyko), or me (Dereks1x). However, I don't see any evidence of disruption. Therefore, take DelloJello's name off the complaint without prejudice (which means Jersyko can re-file a complaint listing DelloJello as the sockpuppeteer and DelloJello2 as the sockpuppet.Dereks1x 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Refuting added accusations by Jersyko (6 lines above, 03

19, 30 March 2007)

Jersyko is an attorney so he should know better than to unethically and improperly continue to add accusations even after he has presented his case.

Isn't he happy that he made a girl cry by upsetting TL500?

Wouldn't you be upset if unjustly accused, yet Jersyko says that expressing anger means guilt.

Now Jersyko is trying to smear me by claiming that there are even more socks despite having no evidence because none exists. His current evidence is so flimsy that he would be sanctioned by the judge if he were in court. There's been no disruption or vandalism. The other accused had either nothing to do with the Obama or Edwards page or just very minimal contact with one or the other, and that was more than a week ago. If they start writing, don't blame me.

As you can see, this complaint is far longer than any other complaint. This is because there is so much evidence toward innocence and lack of disruption that some of the accused has come out to defend themselves at length. In contrast, the truly guilty, those in other sockpuppeting complaints usually have little to say and have been banned previously. Their vandalism and bad language or non-sensical language is clear.

I urge you to come to the only right decision, that is, to end this false complaint and close it once and for all. There has been no disruption or vandalism except for the mayhem raised by Jersyko and friends.

TL500 refuting latest comments by Jersyko (called "note of responses") and DelloJello

technical matter 1 - DelloJello admits being a sockpuppet to DelloJello2, not Dereks1x as he/she is accused of. Therefore, DelloJello should be dropped from the complaint.
technical matter 2 - I am not being accused of being the sockpuppeteer. I am accused of being the sockpuppet. However, I have the most seniority among the accused so it is impossible that the others created me as a sockpuppet. Therefore, I cannot be a sockpuppet. As a result, I should be dropped from the complaint because I am accused of being a sockPUPPET.
Improper behavior by the accuser, Jersyko - Jersyko is trying to bring unsubstantiated fear to the Head of this Inquiry (Wikipedia Chief Administrator) by claiming there are many more sockpuppets that he originally thought. Bring in the evidence if it exist. There has been no disruption, vandalism, or multiple voting so nothing wrong has been done. And Jersyko has failed to bring in any more names of these "many more" sockpuppets.
Improper behavior by the accuser, Jersyko. Jersyko claims "similar writing style and rebuttals". Jersyko is trying to be tricky because he knows he has no case and is trying to scare the Head of this Inquiry. The fact is that you have to respond strictly to the complaint. For example, if someone is accused of fraud, there is a specific law (it even has a number). That law, fraud (for example) has certain elements that must be met. The same here. Wikipedia has rules and says what is wrong. They list things like vandalism and multiple voting. So, at least I've addressed those points instead of just having a "you did, no I did not, did too, did not" type argument. Derek also has, but DelloJello didn't.
Regarding "similar writing styles", Jersyko is an attorney. He knows that such accusation must be substantiated by expert testimony otherwise it's just hearsay and improperly trying to influence the Head of this Inquiry. Jersyko is aware that, despite the lengthy accusations and responses, he has shown that there have been absolutely no signs of vandalism, disruption, or multiple voting. The only disruption that has happened is that Jersyko has failed to assume good faith and has gone on a witch hunt (and also chased away a user, DelloJello).
The accuser, Jersyko, even admits that I am innocent in another page. [306] where he writes " Aside from TL500, the suspected socks had few edits outside their agreement with Dereksx1 in content disputes" (This clears ME). He, acting as the prosecutor who is in charge of making sure there is a case, even has doubts when he says (in the initial complaint at the top) "I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain " and adds "I'm more confident about the first two of the socks than the last of the three." meaning that he is not confident at all about his accusation that I am a sockpuppet.
But these are technical (but still important) arguments in my favor. The practical argument is as follows:

**Behavior and Evidence regarding TL500**
Article	# of Edits	# of vandalism, multiple voting, arguments with others
Barack Obama	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
John Edwards	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
John Edwards talk page	ZERO (DelloJello has 1 edit)	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
Obama talk page	2 (DelloJello had ZERO)	ZERO (same number as DelloJello)

In conclusion, I have only made very polite and brief comments on one of the talk pages and not the Obama article nor the John Edwards article. I did not make any comments on the John Edwards talk page. I have done NO VANDALISM, NO DISRUPTION, NO MULTIPLE VOTING, NO BAD LANGUAGE, NOTHING. Before jersyko made my close to tears (not a secret because it was already revealed) but now I am strong. Stop this, bullies.
As further evidence, see this nice chart that I built. I don't know about the others, except I know Dereks1x doesn't know how to do this! Since I do, I can't be his sockpuppet! Take that, bullies!TL500 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn right that I don't know how to build a chart. Evidence: look at the homemade chart that I made in the middle of this complaint showing how the other accused had minimal or no contact with the Obama and Edwards articles.Dereks1x 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you and your socks are using charts at all instead of diffs (as clearly indicated by the SSP instructions) says a lot. Among other things, it has convinced me that TL500 is certainly one of your socks when I wasn't convinced before. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Refuting new accusations by Jersyko (who keeps coming up with new accusation when the old ones are without merit and are baseless.

Jerskyo just noted that, based on his "evidence", there isn't proof that TL500 is a sockpuppet of mine (saying "TL500 is certainly one of your socks when I wasn't convinced before".) However, he now says he has "proof" because TL500 made up a nice chart and I had a very homemade one near the middle of this complaint. Jersyko now bases his claim that TL500 is a sockpuppet because of a chart, not because of disruption or vandalism or being a sockpuppetting editor. That is evidence that this complaint is false and baseless.
Jersyko claims that TL500 hasn't used diffs and that proves TL500 is a sockpuppet. The facts show that TL500 had NO contributions to the disputed articles, i.e. Obama and Edwards, no contributions to the talk page of Obama and only very minor comments about Edwards talk page (not the article) quite a few days ago. If there are no written edits, there can't be any diffs. Likewise, there are no diffs to show (which Jersyko says shows guilt) between me and Franklp, George Butler, Wlso, Akhilleus, Seraphimblade, etc. so using Jersko's flawed logic, I am those account holder's sockpuppet, too.
Jersyko has presented no valid evidence for sockpuppetry so has resorted to saying that TL500's chart is the reason for is complaint. Jersyko has abused being an adminstrator by abusing his knowledge of the system and gaming it. (Wikipedia says "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia" here [307]. He has resorted to legthly complaints like this when the real reason is that he and Tvoz do not like it when their POV edits on Obama and Edwards are politely challenged with logical, civil, and NPOV edits by me. So he has accused me of being a sockpuppeteer and dragged in these other people.
The reason for that this complaint is so long is because I am innocent. The other complaints are shorter because many of those people are guilty and have no defense.
To quote TL500, "Show me where I have vandalized, show me where I've voted in multiple polls...... NONE, ZERO, NEVER, ZIPPO, NADA.Dereks1x 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be no further comment unless HumanThing has anything to add. Jersyko and Tvoz have presented their case and come back to add more already. This complaint is already 42kb, bigger than most articles!Dereks1x 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All accounts are sockpuppets of User:Dereks1x. I have blocked the sockmaster account for 48 hours for Wikistalking and WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus. I have not blocked the sockpuppet accounts (thus far) because it appears that this user has not used the sockpuppets for block evasion. If such evasion occurs, or if other problems happen, report to my user talk page for follow up. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment is an amusing work of speculative fiction and I'll leave it posted because a technical glitch delayed implementation of the 48 hour block. Dereks1x should consider himself or herself strongly cautioned regarding irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations. WP:DE makes good weekend reading. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment

This block is not based on evidence. However, it is based on retaliation. Jersyko's friend was running for adminstratorship. He works on SSP's. Jersyko, after complaining, voted for his friend. I made a comment on the voting asking the candidate to avoid a conflict of interest and NOT decide on a case involving someone who was voting for him. Their friend, Durova, a fellow Seattle resident who nominated the administrator in the first place, then deleted my comment (which is just an ethics question, not disruption) and made then started to stalk me and made above determination of the very crime that she was doing (wikistalking).

You will note that Durova is not a regular SSP administration and shows that she is working as a meatpuppet of Jersyko. They are banning me because they have a POV agenda for Obama and John Edwards. You can also note that wikistalking did not occur because I had posted and looked at the adminstrator's page before.Dereks1x 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from TL500

I think the assumption of Seattle and the use of the word meatpuppet doesn't have to be included. I would add, however, that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Durova and her decison because Durova nominated a candidate for administratorship and didn't like the question that was asked. Furthermore, Jersyko was one of the people voting for the candidate. Dereks1x simply asked if the candidate would recuse himself/herself for period of time for those that voted for or against him. It seems that Durova did not like the fact that his/her candidate was being asked a legimate question. Instead, Durova paid political patronage for Jersyko's vote, i.e. since you voted for my candidate, I'll help you out hurt those who you don't like.

Also, the fact that Dereks1x is currently blocked but I can post shows that my IP is different from Dereks1x. Further proof that I am not a sockpuppet.TL500 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) TL500 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)